Libb Thims (attack)
Left: a metaphorical depiction of American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims (on ladder) descending into the vast sea of intellectually hungry sharks, shown being attacked, by a fellow "fill-in-the-blank" scientist shark for promoting the seemingly absurd view.
In hmolscience, Libb Thims (attack) page lists public ‘attacks’ by the intellectual opponents of the chemical thermodynamics based humanities work, i.e. physicochemical humanities, human chemical thermodynamics, hmolscience, among other two cultures namesakes, of American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims, since going public with his views on 27 Apr 2005; prior to 2001, the subject remained largely, since 1995, as a intellectual "puzzle" solving sort of hobby.

In circa 1810, English polymath Thomas Young stated his view of science as an intellectual battleground, his in particular with the work of Joseph Lagrange, as a sort of intellectual warfare: [1]

Scientific investigations are a sort of warfare, carried on in the closet or on the couch against all one’s contemporaries and predecessors; I have often gained a single victory when I have been half asleep, but more frequently found, on being thoroughly awake, that the enemy had still the advantage of me when I thought I had him fast in a corner.”

Thims, who is but carrying forward the combined work of Goethe, Adams, and Pareto, and the other social Newtons, faces the same resistance, in the form of Young-like warfare, in modern times, as the old greats faced in their time—similar how Ernst Lecher ridiculed, albeit later recanted, Arthur Haas’ 1910 paper, outlining a treatment of the hydrogen atom involving quantization of electronic orbitals (anticipating the Bohr model by three years), as a “carnival joke”—in the form of ad hominems, jibes, and pejorative attacks, all of which resulting from something akin to knee-jerk like cultural ignorance in regards to inability to deal with absurdities, e.g. that atoms are sort of alive (see: Charles Sherrington), arising from the collide of modern physical science with older comparative mythology and religious ideals.

Schopenhauer | Boltzmann
In hmolscience history, there have been a number of classic battles between those who have attempted to advance a physico-chemical based versions of the humanities; one of the first being that between Arthur Schopenhauer, whose view was the following:

“The will of the copper, claimed and preoccupied by the electrical opposition to the iron, leaves unused the opportunity that presents itself for its chemical affinity for oxygen and carbonic acid, behaves exactly as the will does in a person who abstains from an action to which he would otherwise feel moved, in order to perform another to which he is urged by a stronger motive.”
Schopenhauer vs Boltzmann
The famous "attack" by Ludwig Boltzmann on the physico-chemical monism philosophical, aka Goethean philosophy, views views of Arthur Schopenhauer, is a historical rendition of recent attacks by scientists on Libb Thims, who is but advancing the so-called Goethe, Schopenhauer, Henderson view.

and Ludwig Boltzmann, whose reaction "attack" view was the following:

“Schopenhauer is a mindless, ignorant, spreader of nonsense.”

Boltzmann of mechanistic school of Ludwig Boltzmann and Hermann Helmholtz against the romanticism school of Arthur Schopenhauer and Karl Zollner, who all, ironically, embraced Goethe, and his physicochemical mechanistic romanticism metamorphology "one nature" ideology; akin to what occurs today against Libb Thims.

Henderson | Sorokin
Another classic battle, which took place during the Harvard Pareto circle, was that between physical chemist Lawrence Henderson, who asserted that that physical chemistry and chemical thermodynamics applies to the explication of the humanities and to socioeconomic systems, and sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, who repeatedly attacked, via debate, objection, and publication, the so-called “mechanistic school” views, as Sorokin dubbed them, of Henderson, and other like him, historically speaking.

Henderson vs Sorokin
(add discussion)

Adams | Diggins
A more spread out example is that of Henry Adams, one of Thims' intellectual twinsthe other twin being Goethe), also incorrectly labeled as "crank" (by John Diggins, 1995), who said the same about his work in 1908-09:

“I have run my head hard up against a form of mathematics that grinds my brains out. I flounder like a sculpin in the mud. It is called the ‘law of phases’, and was invented at Yale [by Gibbs]. No one shall persuade me that I am not a phase. On the physico-chemical law of development and dynamics, our society has reached what is called the critical point where it is near a new phase or equilibrium. My essay ‘The Rule of Phase Applied to History’ is a ‘mere intellectual plaything, like a puzzle’. I am interested in getting it into the hands of a ‘scientific, physico-chemical proofreader’ [see: Henry Bumstead] and I am willing to pay ‘liberally for the job’.”
Henry Adams (1908-09), aggregate personal note communications [2]

Correctly, forward a century, we now rank Adams (#2), in social Newton rankings, behind Goethe (#1), and ahead of Pareto (#3).

These ongoing attacks, outlined below in reverse chronological order, in short, are but the result of the incompatible one nature vs two nature mental belief system divide, among the erudite crowd, as has been well-evidenced in the 200-year ongoing Elective Affinities "admirers/enemies" divide, both shown below (left), as well as ongoing social Newton (reductionism) / anti-social Newton (anti-reductionism) divide, both outlined below (right):

Elective Affinities
"admirers/enemies" divide

Physical humanities
"sane/lunatic" divide
Enemies 2

Admirer 2
Crank vs non-Crank

These ongoing debates and attacks arise from the fact that “heat can produce motion”, in the 1824 words of French engineer Sadi Carnot, “everyone knows”, and that “to heat are due the vast movements which take place on earth”, most agree on, and that the laws which govern the “phenomenon of the production of motion by heat” for all “working substances” whatever the “method by which it is operated” are laws governing the operation of the known universe, nearly everyone agrees on, but that “heat is what produces human motion” in accordance with these laws, almost no one knows and most will not accept even as a principle.

The attacks against the views and or work of Libb Thims are listed below, by yearly and or monthly reoccurring reverse chronologically attack order:


“Initially I had the impression that you [Thims] were a scholarExternal link icon (c)and scientist, not some self-published wacko angry at the world for not taking his theories seriously. And that you would read carefully instead of just using out of context quotations and ad hominem jabs to push your own agenda. Please don't prove this latter revised impression to be the more accurate one.” Terrence Deacon 75Terrence Deacon (22 May 2013) American neurological anthropologist; emergent chemical teleology theorist

● Upset about Thims' review of his 2011 book Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged From Matter.

“Gary, are you familiar with this guy [Libb Thims] at all? I'd never heard of him, until I got this message just now out of the blue. I can't immediately tell from a quick scan of the links he includes [Two cultures department, University of California, Berkeley, Rossini debate, Princeton University Department of Social Physics] whether or not he's mostly a crank (I will try to find some time to read more thoroughly, and in any case answer him politely), but there might be something of relevance to the Templeton project here.” Jay Labinger 75Jay Labinger (21 Mar 2013) American organometallic chemist; literature chemistry scholar

Reaction to advice request on the aim to establish America’s first two cultures department, similar to the 1950s Princetonsocial physics” department, Labinger’s alma matter. Email was possibly accidentally forwarded to Thims as copy?


“If people are using this site [Hmolpedia] to do their PhD dissertations and getting away with that, their advisors should be shot.” PC 75Peggy La Cerra (29 Aug 2011) American evolutionary psychologist and neuroscientist; theory "depression energy theory of the mind" (1996).

● Is upset about the criticism of her 1996-2002 “depression energy theory of mind”, in the evolutionary psychology article, as well as the expanded discussion of her theory in her Hmolpedia article and wants every mention of her either changed, deleted, and or removed.

“This is all just a horrendous analogy. Chemical laws apply to humans, but our behavior is more complex than something that can be modeled with a couple of thermodynamic equations.

A + B → AB is just a pretentious way of stating something we already know; it tells us absolutely nothing new.”

Goethe’s Elective Affinities is a 'nutty theory'.”
Ryan Grannell 75Ryan Grannell (Jun-Jul 2011), Irish (openly atheist) biochemistry student

● Spent a month blogging about how human chemistry and human thermodynamics are "bulls**t"; considers human chemistry and human thermodynamics to be “junk science”; believes Goethe’s elective affinities is a “nutty theory”; considers Thims’ thermodynamic proof that good always triumphs over evil to be nothing but “calculus coated woo, hidden behind a smokescreen of rhetorical mathematics”; believes that enthalpy has nothing to do with the sexual heat of physical attraction (Jul 2011), etc., etc.,

“There is no science in your arguments and I now consider discussion with you a waste of time.” DMR Sekhar (small)
DMR Sekhar (Mar 2011), Indian chemical engineer, theory: genopsych (2007)

● Objection to the view that his "self drive" theory of human motion is a perpetual motion theory.

Hydrogen molecules and human molecules are objects of different categories. Your viewpoints about the general nature of 'your molecules' contradict to the philosophy, to the principle of holism. These views are not consistent with the mathematical methods of nature describing. In particular, these representations are not consistent with the Gibbs phase rule!!! I am sure that if you will not transform your views, all professional scientists - your well-wishers turned away from you. You'll be surrounded by dreamers and colleagues who do not have special education.” (Jan 12-13, 2011)

“You write on science very often. Now you wrote that you are a scientist. What is your specialty in science? Myself and my friends do not know about your articles in peer reviewed professional journals? I try to support you. However, you do not listen to my opinions. I believe that you have created an incredible mess. I'm beginning to understand that you do not know ‘what science is?’. Your work will have value only for information but would have no value to science. I'm convinced of it. Very sorry!” (Feb 2011)
Gladyshev 75 newGeorgi Gladyshev , Russian physical chemist, Author: Thermodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Living Beings (1997)

● Defensive comments on the unbridgeable gap (article)

● Defensive comments on the defunct theory of life (article).

“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. Thermodynamics of human relationships is bullcrap.

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.”
Lubos Motl 75Lubos Motl (Nov 2010), Czech-American theoretical physics professor (and black hole thermodynamicist), Harvard University

● Comment in response watching several HumanChemistry 101 YouTube videos.

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; moreover, Humans are not molecules, they are complex objects composed of many molecules.”Marcin Borkowski 75Marcin Borkowski (Sep 2010), Polish chemist, founder of, 1997; admin at

● Response to query on whether or not human chemistry should be taught in school.

“Honestly, the idea of 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.”Mitch Garcia 75Mitch Garcia (Sep 2010), American nuclear chemist; founded 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.

● Response to query if discussion of human chemistry would be banned by him at

“Looks like steaming horse manure reeking of pseudoscience and cloaked in scholarly gobbledygook.”icon 75 (test)– Smokefoot (Sep 2010External link icon (c)), American industrial chemist

● Comment on request for review of draft Wikipedia incubator article on the human molecule.

“The topic of the human molecule is non-notable fringe subject.”icon 75 (test)– Brian Duke (Sep 2010External link icon (c)), English-born Australian computational chemist

● Comment on request for review of draft Wikipedia incubator article on the human molecule.

“The incubator human molecule article is a horror show. It’s not fringe, it's beyond that: this is a piece of original research kookery at its very worst. It's not even pseudoscience: it does not even try to be anything close to science. A textbook case of absurd absurdity cranked up to absurd.”icon 75 (test)– Anon German (Sep 2010External link icon (c)), commentator

● Discussion on deletion review to have a Wikipedia article on the human molecule.

“Where did Gibbs say that ‘a society is one such material system’? He didn’t –that is your particular (incorrect) reading of the application of thermodynamics.

When I talk about the 'entropy' of the students, it's **really** important to note that this is just an analogy. Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics are very abused concepts.

An arrangement of the students *does not* have an associated thermodynamic entropy.

You have taken the abuse of the term entropy to an entirely new level, however, by suggesting that it—and, unbelievably, quantum mechanics—can be applied to 'interactions' in romantic human relationships.”
Philip Moriarty 75Philip Moriarty (May, 2009External link icon (c)), thermal physics professor, Nottingham University, UK

● Comment in response to statement of “Gibbs’ definition of thermodynamics (1876): ‘the comprehension of the laws which govern any material system is greatly facilitated by considering the energy and entropy of the system in the various states of which it is capable.’ A society is one such material system. If you think that you are exempt from these laws, that is your prerogative.”

● See: Moriarty-Thims debate

“Human chemistry is semi-plausible twaddle, not a genuine field of study, and junk. Human chemistry is just not a scientific theory - it's an analogy at best.”Tim Vickers 75
– Tim Vickers (Oct 2008), Scottish-American biochemist, PhD on trypanothione metabolism, Dundee University, Scottland; post-doctorial research on leishmaniasis in US

● Comment in response to voting opinion in Wikipedia deletion of article on human chemistry.

“The premise of chemical reactions occurring between human molecules is a crackpot-subject, pseudoscience, and a lunatic notion.”Stephen Lower 75
Stephen Lower (2007), Canadian (retired) physical chemistry professor, Simon Fraser University (1965-1999); BA biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley; PhD in physical chemistry, University of British Columbia.

● A response listing of various publications sites of the Institute of Human Thermodynamics under the category of ‘crackpot’ in his online list of resources for chemistry educators (

“Delete and salt and ban author: Another in the web of "human chemistry' garbage perpetrated by [Libb Thims]. No real notability, an involvement with a fringe pseudoscience that is so far on the fringe that it nearly seems to be an analogy, no good third-party sources, and the only Wikipedia editor that has taken any interest in him writes dishonest self-promoting articles as a hobby. Kill the article, ban the author.”icon 75 (test)— Kww (2007), Wikipedia administrator (12 OctExternal link icon (c)), American former hotel manager and real estate developer, whose hobbies include: mandolin, harmonica, saxophone, Japanese, and evolutionary biology, greatly-opposed to having Wikipedia articles on human thermodynamics and human chemistry.

“Thims is a lost soul who seriously searches for the thermodynamic interpretation of sex.”Frank Lambert 75Frank Lambert (Jul 2006External link icon (c)), American chemistry professor, Occidental College; BS Harvard, PhD organic chemistry, University of Chicago, Curator of the various sites.
● Comment on Thims in regard to Lambert's demand, on the Wikipedia entropy talk page, that that entropy be redefined as energy dispersal.

“The idea of ‘human chemical reactions’ occurring between ‘human molecules’ is good for a laugh, but not much else.”icon 75 (test)
– V. Smith (Nov 2005External link icon (c)), American retired geology teacher, MS geology University of Arizona.

● Response to query as to why a link an external link ‘human chemical reactions’ was removed from the Wikipedia chemistry page.

Human thermodynamics is pseudoscience. 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, 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).”
Edward Sanville 75 n
Edward Sanville (Sep 2005), 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.

● Response to query as to why he thought an external link on the Wikipedia thermodynamics page to was inappropriate.

“Thermodynamics isn't meant to describe human relationships.”icon 75 (test)– Ten of All Trades (June 2005External link icon (c)), BS physics and chemistry, PhD biology and biophysics.

● Comment vote to delete Wikipedia human thermodynamics article.

“Human thermodynamics is well-disguised nonsense. The subject goes off the rails when it says things like wherein a man M meets or collides in time with a woman W over the substrate surface earth to form a bonded relationship’ which is nearly patent nonsense. It's subtle, but I reckon it's nonsense.”icon 75 (test)– Splash (June 2005External link icon (c)), PhD electrical engineering and telecommunications student, University of Bristol.

● Comment vote to delete Wikipedia human thermodynamics article.

“I admit, open systems do exist and can be described with thermodynamics; nonetheless, their application to group dynamics is a major stretch, and modeling human relationships on them involves all sorts of unstated assumptions, for instance that a state function (like Gibbs free energy) even applies. Or that they're spontaneous. My skepticism is heightened by having looked at the siteExternal link icon (c)and noticed it: firmly on the pseudo side of fringe science.”icon 75 (test)– The Literate Engineer (June 2005External link icon (c)), American civil engineering intern.

● Comment vote to delete Wikipedia human thermodynamics article.

See also
Elective Affinities (enemies)
Human thermodynamics (objections to)
● Human chemistry (objections to)

1. Robinson, Andrew. The Last Man Who Knew Everything (pg. 25, 183). A Plume Book.
2. Samuels, Ernest. (1989). Henry Adams (human molecule, pg. 115; physico-chemical, pgs. 401, 411; “Note to John Jameson”, pg. 409). Harvard University Press.

External links
HT testimonials –

TDics icon ns