Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:35, 21 June 2005 editTenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs)Administrators21,282 edits []: delete← Previous edit Revision as of 04:55, 21 June 2005 edit undoThe Literate Engineer (talk | contribs)1,546 edits []: commentedNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
*'''Delete''' It's different than the last article, but "different" does not mean "better" in this case. --] 03:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) *'''Delete''' It's different than the last article, but "different" does not mean "better" in this case. --] 03:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. I am the author. I understand everyone&#8217;s inherent frustration with its content, i.e. the application of reaction mechanics to one&#8217;s own life. It's emotionally-confusing to point the microscope at oneself. However, let me ask this: in human life, do we all agree that bonds are broken and bonds are formed? If so, why is it that we cannot find one semblance of an article related to human bonding in Misplaced Pages written in the format of chemistry, in spite of the fact that numerous Laureates have spent decades working on such a premise (as shown by all the quotes)? Maybe I should search under &#8216;witchcraft&#8217;, &#8216;mystery&#8217;, &#8216;glue-all&#8217;, or maybe &#8216;Romance Novels&#8217;? According to Merriam-Webster, an &#8216;encyclopedia&#8217; is defined as: a work that contains information on ''all'' branches of knowledge. Is this or is this not an encyclopedia? By definition, thermodynamics is the science of energy transformations. By definition, human thermodynamics is a ''branch'' of thermodynamics. If I was a random person curious as to whether or not thermodynamics is applicable to human life, I would be extremely content to find such a straight forward article. As Misplaced Pages is such renowned worldly encyclopedia, I would certainly expect it to have some content in this direction. P.S. human systems are &#8216;open&#8217;. Check your facts. --] 03:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep'''. I am the author. I understand everyone&#8217;s inherent frustration with its content, i.e. the application of reaction mechanics to one&#8217;s own life. It's emotionally-confusing to point the microscope at oneself. However, let me ask this: in human life, do we all agree that bonds are broken and bonds are formed? If so, why is it that we cannot find one semblance of an article related to human bonding in Misplaced Pages written in the format of chemistry, in spite of the fact that numerous Laureates have spent decades working on such a premise (as shown by all the quotes)? Maybe I should search under &#8216;witchcraft&#8217;, &#8216;mystery&#8217;, &#8216;glue-all&#8217;, or maybe &#8216;Romance Novels&#8217;? According to Merriam-Webster, an &#8216;encyclopedia&#8217; is defined as: a work that contains information on ''all'' branches of knowledge. Is this or is this not an encyclopedia? By definition, thermodynamics is the science of energy transformations. By definition, human thermodynamics is a ''branch'' of thermodynamics. If I was a random person curious as to whether or not thermodynamics is applicable to human life, I would be extremely content to find such a straight forward article. As Misplaced Pages is such renowned worldly encyclopedia, I would certainly expect it to have some content in this direction. P.S. human systems are &#8216;open&#8217;. Check your facts. --] 03:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**I'm aware human systems are open systems. My understanding is, though, that the second law of thermodynamics, referenced in this article, from which Gibbs free energy, also referenced, is derived applies primarily to ''closed'' systems. 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 of this article is heightened by having looked at the site linked to from the Thims reference and noticed it firmly on the pseudo- side of fringe science. And, since Thims seems to be the only actual researcher in the field of "human thermodynamics", the article now strikes me as unverifiable. I stand by my vote, thus ends my '''comment'''. ] 04:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Creative and original, but not scientific or encyclopedic. Thermodymics isn't meant to describe human relationships&mdash;and there is little evidence to suggest that this is a ''notable'' pet theory. --](]) 04:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Creative and original, but not scientific or encyclopedic. Thermodymics isn't meant to describe human relationships&mdash;and there is little evidence to suggest that this is a ''notable'' pet theory. --](]) 04:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:55, 21 June 2005

Human thermodynamics

Someone tagged this as a speedy because it's got the same name as recent vfd deleted content, but this text is IMO significantly different. I'm bringing it here to see what the community opinion is before acting. Please be sure to read the text and not just vote based on the previous VFD. - Mgm| 21:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Phrase only gets 14 google hits, but it might be one of many terms used to describe a similar concept - in which case, I might vote to keep if it made sense once translated into something more easily understandable. -- BDAbramson 22:01, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm inclined to dismiss this as patent nonsense. At best, it's original research and original speculation tacked on to the name of a paper by Libb Thims (name of the journal in which the article appeared would help with verifying that) and a misapplication of thermodynamics (closed system, people, closed system). No, I take it back, that's not at best. At best, this isn't original research and speculation, just a really sloppy presentation of non-notable pseudoscience. The Literate Engineer 01:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I read the text, and I understand the material. It is well-disguised nonsense. It is, for the most part, basic thermodynamics (badly presented, should be in LaTeX) that is dealt with just fine by other, dedicated articles. See, e.g. entropy, free energy. Note that these terms are standard thermo terms. Then, the article goes off the rails and says things like "wherein a man M meets or collides in time with a woman W over the substrate surface called ‘earth’ to form a bonded relationship" which is nearly patent nonsense and it goes down hill from there. The website looks professional, to a point, and claims they have a PhD - I reckon it's an elaborate hoax. Further the Google hits deal with the perfectly good topic of human thermo in terms of "how do you keep people cool" and "what sort of ways do humans lose heat/warm up" etc. It's subtle, but I reckon it's nonsense.-Splash 01:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's different than the last article, but "different" does not mean "better" in this case. --Xcali 03:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I am the author. I understand everyone’s inherent frustration with its content, i.e. the application of reaction mechanics to one’s own life. It's emotionally-confusing to point the microscope at oneself. However, let me ask this: in human life, do we all agree that bonds are broken and bonds are formed? If so, why is it that we cannot find one semblance of an article related to human bonding in Misplaced Pages written in the format of chemistry, in spite of the fact that numerous Laureates have spent decades working on such a premise (as shown by all the quotes)? Maybe I should search under ‘witchcraft’, ‘mystery’, ‘glue-all’, or maybe ‘Romance Novels’? According to Merriam-Webster, an ‘encyclopedia’ is defined as: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge. Is this or is this not an encyclopedia? By definition, thermodynamics is the science of energy transformations. By definition, human thermodynamics is a branch of thermodynamics. If I was a random person curious as to whether or not thermodynamics is applicable to human life, I would be extremely content to find such a straight forward article. As Misplaced Pages is such renowned worldly encyclopedia, I would certainly expect it to have some content in this direction. P.S. human systems are ‘open’. Check your facts. --Wavesmikey 03:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm aware human systems are open systems. My understanding is, though, that the second law of thermodynamics, referenced in this article, from which Gibbs free energy, also referenced, is derived applies primarily to closed systems. 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 of this article is heightened by having looked at the site linked to from the Thims reference and noticed it firmly on the pseudo- side of fringe science. And, since Thims seems to be the only actual researcher in the field of "human thermodynamics", the article now strikes me as unverifiable. I stand by my vote, thus ends my comment. The Literate Engineer 04:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Creative and original, but not scientific or encyclopedic. Thermodymics isn't meant to describe human relationships—and there is little evidence to suggest that this is a notable pet theory. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)