I take that as a statement with an irresponsible degree of certainty.
That is ridiculous language. You could of course explain your reasoning. I searched Herbert Spencer online, and could see nothing that foresaw Einstein’s theories.
I think he is either making a tongue in cheek comment given Spencer’s position on subjective relativity, or has really bought into the idea.
Still, his comparison between the two does border on woo woo because it conflates subjective relativism (the idea that truth depends on your personal perspective) with physical relativity (where measurements depend on your frame of reference, but the underlying reality is perfectly deterministic and absolute).
1 Like
Don’t get me started on post-modernism, it is destroying our society. You’d end up having to calling the vet to have me put down. 
As I am sure you know, Einstein opposed quantum mechanics because it is not perfectly deterministic.
1 Like
It’s euphemistic politeness. 
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spencer-first-principles-1867
Look for § 17.
The curious thing with Herbert Spencer is that everybody had been stealing from him, but he nowhere got the credits. Libertarians steal his ideas without proper credit, Spencer had formulated a theory of evolution before Darwin, etc.
I quote you:
I think
If you realize that this is a thought, thus subjective, not necessarily describing the reality of my comparison, but only your alleged reality, it is relative to nothing at all 
I wonder why you started with ‘I think’, it being clearly suggestive of a possibility, born in your mind, then moved on to, instead of ‘this alleged comparison’ to ‘his comparison’.
Talking about ‘woo woo’.
What kind of relatively subjectively convoluted thoughts are you entertaining, Spencer not being a proponent of ‘subjective relativism’ aka philosophical subjectivism, and therefor my proposition that Spencer first lay’d out the basics of relativism could-would be a ’ tongue in cheek comment’, and thereafter a woo woo, and so fort.
Your associations seem more a mystery of indetermination than the behavior of quantum particles..hippingtothehophipping, or it could be due to the usual mechanics, ignorance combined with blufpoker.
The internet is the parrot circuit of the popular. The popular is always wrong by definition.
I have no idea what euphemistic politeness is.
So had others. What sets Darwin and Alfred Wallace apart is that they both independently and at the same time proposed a mechanism for evolution, namely natural selection. Darwin usually gets the credit because his work was far more extensive and convincing than Wallace’s, and the latter was very modest and gracious in his dealings with Darwin’s work.
If we are discussing the Eurovision Song Contest, then you have a point. Bananas are popular, and good for you.
1 Like
What was this thread about? 
1 Like
The very title of the thread says “not comprehensible input”, and, well, I will let you make whatever inference seems most appropriate 
3 Likes
That’s too easy.
The big difference is that the theory of evolution of Herbert Spencer involved material evolution in the universe, say the evolution of the basic material components, biological evolution (‘life’), and evolution of human societies. Thus, not only biological evolution as was the case with the others.
He formulated the processes most succicently, describing it as a process of ‘incoherent homogeneity towards coherent heterogeneity’.
As Kierkegaard wrote: even if the public accepts something as true, which is true, it is always for the wrong reasons.. The public is thus always wrong, even if it appears to be right.
1 Like