In hmolscience, detractors are those scientists or scholars that disparage, attack, or label as a "danger" someone or something related to the premise that a human is a molecule and or that the laws of physics, chemistry, mechanics, and or thermodynamics apply or govern human activities, operations, or relationships.

List
The following is the work in progress collection of detractors. Those listed before 2005, are considered historical detractors; those listed after 2005, unless indicated, voiced their objections typically after encounters with the views of American chemical engineer Libb Thims. [1] The cross icon signifies that the person detracts on religious grounds. For those scientists who do not believe in religion, their object becomes very puzzling?


DetractorView






Christoph Wieland
1810
WikiChristoph Wieland (1733-1813)
German author
Religion icon 20x27Commented on Goethe's Elective Affinities, that it was nonsense and childish fooling around; objecting to the radicalness of its Christianity, calling it a "truly horrible work".
icon 75 (test)
1922
Petre Trisca (c.1890-c.1956)
Romanian social concerns scholar
His Preliminaries on Social Mechanics: Analysis of Works, engages “an almost pathologically savage attack” on the mechanistic school, namely the social mechanics works produced during the period 1896 and 1914, namely those of Spiru Haret, Lester Ward, Leon Winiarski, and Antonio Portuendo.
Edwin Slosson 75
1925
Edwin Slosson (1865-1929)
American chemist-theologian
Religion icon 20x27In his Sermons of a Chemist, he went back and forth in promoting types of "chemical anthropomorhizing" and chemical aphorisms, but warned that "we must beware of carrying over into the realm of psychology the laws of inanimate matter"; likewise, "the seers and augurs made a mistake that is often made yet, when a man thinks he can explain all of biology by the laws of chemistry and all of sociology by the laws of biology, which is the common mistake of carrying a thing too far."
Pitirim Sorokin 75
1928
WikiPitirim Sorokin (1889-1968)
Russian-born American sociologist
In his 785-page Contemporary Sociological Theories, devotes the entire first chapter (The Mechanistic School), over sixty-pages of argument, to an attack and criticism of the various human physics/social physics, human energetics/human thermodynamics, social mechanics thinkers (Carey, Pareto, Winiarski, Ostwald, etc. ) who have argued that people are social atoms or human molecules governed by the application of the hard sciences physics, chemistry, mechanics, energetics, and thermodynamics; claiming that they are all "pseudo-sciences" and mere "superficial analogies". Quote: "As far as they try to identify physical and mechanical analogies with social ones, the give only fallacious analogies which do not, and cannot, explain anything in the field of social mechanics." (one of many example views expressed)
Robert Heilbroner 75
1953
WikiRobert Heilbroner (1919-2005)
American economist
Quote: “there is an unbridgeable gap between the ‘behavior’ of [subatomic particles] and those of human beings who constitute the objects of study of social science. Aside from pure physical reflexes, human behavior cannot be understood without the concept of volition—the unbridgeable capacity to change our minds up to the very last minute. By way of contrast, the elements of nature ‘behave’ as they do for reasons of which we know only one thing: the particles of physics do not ‘choose’ to behave as they do.”
John Bowlby 75
1969
WikiJohn Bowlby (1907-1990)
British developmental psychologist
Devoted the entire first chapter, titled “Point of View”, of his monumental three-volume Attachment series treatise, towards an effort to discredit psychodynamics founder Sigmund Freud in his use of physics terms, such as energy, entropy, force, pressure, or inertia, as in "principle of inertia", etc., in psychology; arguing, for instance, that “nor is it to be supposed that the principle of entropy apples to living as it does to non-living systems.”
Paul Samuelson 75
1970
WikiPaul Samuelson (1915-2009)
American economist

Nobel Prize winner in Economics (1970)
Second generation student of Gibbs
Stated (1970) that it is “pathetic to have an economist or engineer try to force analogies between concepts of physics, such as entropy or energy, into economics”; stated (1972) that “sign of a half-baked speculator in the social sciences is his search for something in the social system that corresponds to the physicist's notion of entropy."
Tominaga Keii 75
2004
Tominaga Keii (1920-2009)
Japanese chemical engineer and chemical thermodynamicist
Commented, in his chemical thermodynamics textbook chapter, about Goethe's Elective Affinities that it "did not add any scientific value."
Steve Fuller 75
2005
WikiSteve Fuller (1959-)
American philosopher and sociologist

Sociology professor, Warwick University
Religion icon 20x27Thinks that he is not a molecule and considers even the thought of the idea to be "infuriating", as expressed in his New Scientist article "I Am Not a Molecule"; objects in particular to the Philip Ball's 2004 book Critical Mass, which outlines a "physics of society" (social physics) in which masses of people are viewed in bulk as particles that interact according to the laws of statistical mechanics.
Edward Sanville 75 n
2005
Wikipedia user iconEdward Sanville (c.1979-)
American computational chemist

BS chemistry (2001), University of New Hampshire; PhD computational chemistry 2005, Dartmouth College; post-graduate research in quantum molecular dynamics, Loughborough University.
Commented (Sep 21): that “human thermodynamics is pseudoscience”, because of the “interchanging of words with precise scientific meanings, (i.e. "bond," "energy," "reaction," "hot"), with their everyday meanings or referring to things which would not fit the scientific definition at all, which is one of the cornerstones of pseudoscience. Of course, human beings obey the laws of thermodynamics like everything else in the universe, but the Gibbs free energy equation only [can be used] to describe large systems of microscopic particles; [and cannot be applied] to analogous situations between human beings, just because the everyday and scientific words involved happen to correspond (in English).”
icon 75 (test)
2006
John Wojcik (1938-)
American physical chemist

Retired chemistry professor, Villanova University
Religion icon 20x27(lightbulb icon white 25Rossini) In the Rossini debate, argued that there is great “danger” in the use of “anthropomorphism in chemistry” in that some may “come to believe that there is substance in them”; moreover: “worst of all, there is the danger that chemical thermodynamics will have ascribed to it a power that it simply does not have, namely, the power to 'explain' the human condition.”
Stephen Lower 75
2007
Stephen Lower (c.1945-)
Canadian physical chemist

Chemistry professor (retired), Simon Fraser University (1965-1999); BA biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley; PhD in physical chemistry, University of British Columbia.
Religion icon 20x27Considers the idea of chemical reactions occurring between humans molecules to be a crackpot-subject, pseudoscience, and a lunatic notion.
Tim Vickers 75
2007
Wikipedia user iconTim Vickers (c.1980-)
Scottish-American biochemist

PhD on trypanothione metabolism, Dundee University, Scottland; post-doctorial research on leishmaniasis in US.
Considers (Oct 08) human chemistry to be semi-plausible twaddle, not a genuine field of study, and junk; quote: “human chemistry is just not a scientific theory - it's an analogy at best”; in 2010 (Jun 11), commented further that he sees the subject of the human molecule to be not a real field of study, but rather "a metaphor or joke".
John Correia 75
2008
John Correia (c.1950-)
American biochemist

Biochemistry professor, University of Mississippi Medical Center
BS (chemistry?) 1972, Villanova University; PhD 1981, University of Connecticut;
Religion icon 20x27Considers (Mar 18) a proposal, by Libb Thims, to give a presentation on the "thermodynamics of human molecules", at the annual Gibbs Conference on Biothermodynamics, which was focused that year on molecular thermodynamics, to be "a joke".
icon 75 (test)
2009
Wikipedia user iconBruce Bathurst (c.1945-)
American geological thermodynamicist

PhD in geological thermodynamic, Princeton
Religion icon 20x27Comments (Aug 24): that he is not a molecule because (a) one need not slavishly adopt terminology from the physical sciences; (b) new terms are of value only if they are synonyms of terms in other sciences, mathematics, or everyday language; (c) being made of atoms is not sufficient to be a molecule; (d) humans have a soul which is something that only God can examine, then that's not a question science is qualified to address. Thinks that asking someone whether or not he or she considers themselves to be a molecule is "an insincere trap or snare attempting to destroy the spirituality of individuals."
Philip Moriarty 75
2009
Philip Moriarty (c.1965-)
Irish thermal physicist; nano-physicist

Physics professor, University of Nottingham
Quote (Sep 02-19): “what's flawed is [Thims’] remarkable assertion that thermodynamic principles can be applied to ‘human molecules’. His view: 'It is only a matter of extrapolation to apply this logic to systems of human molecules...', beggars belief! No, it is not a matter of extrapolation. Just as it is not a matter of extrapolation to take fundamental quantum mechanics and apply it to 'human molecules'. What physical evidence does [Thims’] have for a 'human wavefunction'? Has [he] somehow carried out the equivalent of the double slit experiment for humans?! Does [he] understand what is meant by decoherence or complementarity in the context of QM?”
Marcin Borkowski 75
2010
Marcin Borkowski (1963-)
Polish chemist

Founded ChemBuddy.com in 1997
Quote (Sep 27): “[human chemistry] sounds like crackpottery to me [and] abuse of the word ‘chemistry’? If you are interested in learning about human interactions they are covered by sociology and psychology”; also "Humans are not molecules, they are complex objects composed of many molecules."
Mitch Garcia 75
2010
Mitch Garcia (c.1981-)
American nuclear chemist

Founded ChemicalForums.com in 2003; BS chemistry (2003), University of California, Riverside; PhD chemistry (2009), University of California, Berkeley; postdoctoral research in molecular and medical pharmacology, 2010, UCLA.
Quote (Sep 29): “Honestly, the idea [human chemistry] seems pure crackpottery to me. Crackpots always seem to think they are victims of the "mainstream". They always seem to think no one is intelligent enough to understand their points. Oddly, they all also tend to write a lot in their internet postings. And unfortunately no matter how much we argue with the crackpots they never give an inch in return.”
Lubos Motl 75
2010
WikiLubos Motl (1973-)
Czech-American theoretical physicist (string theory) and black hole thermodynamicist

Physics professor, Harvard University (2004-2007); junior fellow (2001-2004)
PhD, thesis “Nonperturbative Formulations of Superstring Theory” (2001), Rutgers University; MS (physics?) Charles University, Prague
Quote: (Nov 20): “Is this some sort of joke ? Surely, as someone who holds a PhD, you've GOT to realize the blatant absurdity of trying to model the laws governing human relationships using the rules of thermodynamics, a set of rules that only apply at a molecular level. Human beings are NOT molecules, they are composed of molecules, but we aren't giant molecules. Human relationships are governed mostly by human psychology. I can only assume you're senile or crazy to believe this nonsense…”

Quote (Nov 19): “Thermodynamics of human relationships is bullcrap.”

Quote (Nov 16): “The stuff Hirata said about human thermodynamics was a JOKE. You don't seriously believe that he was serious about this, do you ? Your obsession with human thermodynamics is silly.”
Lucien Benguigui 75
2013
Lucien Benguigui (1936-)
French-Israeli physicist
Quote: (11 Sep 2012): “Not all these [human] applications [of entropy] or [‘of mathematical formula of thermodynamics to the economic and social sciences like car wreck behavior, politics, the process of falling in love’ (Bill Nye, 1993)] have a real rational basis connected firmly with physical laws.” [2]

Quote: (5 Feb 2013): “About entropy: If you want to use the concept of entropy outside physics you have to define precisely what it is in a new context. Until now entropy receives precise definitions only in the frame of physics, so you cannot use it outside of physics.” [3]




See also
Libb Thims (attack)
Elective Affinities (enemies)
Human thermodynamics (objectors)

References
1. Interaction sites such as: Wikipedia (articles, discussions, talk pages), YouTube (videos or discussion threads), the Internet (e.g. HumanChemistry.net, HumanThermodynamics.com), Threads (EoHT.info, ChemicalForums.com, etc.), or emails, among other places.
2. (a) Benguigui, Lucien. (2013). “The Different Paths to Entropy” (abs), European Journal of Physics, 34(2):303-.
(b) Nye, Bill. (1993). Bill Nye the Science Guy’s Big Blast of Science (pg. 50). Basic Books.
3. Email communication to Libb Thims (5 Feb 2013).

TDics icon ns