Three independent books resulting from the so-called “Beg analysis” method, where a focused and detailed look at humanities scholars using physical science and or physicochemical terminology is completed, with aims to ferret out the issue in regards to correctness or incorrectness and validity or invalidity. |
“In 1974, I was nominated to attend an advanced training course at the National Institute of Public Administration, Karachi. As a chemist working on the fundamental aspects of coordination and organometallic chemistry, it seemed odd and totally unrelated to me. However, the first lecture by Mr. Mumtaz was quite polarizing when he said that if the lectures during the following weeks could create a disturbance, even though slight, it the thinking of the participants, the objectives of the course would be attained and this led me to take the course with an open mind. I devoted quite a bit of my time to the course material picking up points related to chemistry and interpreting them in physico-chemical terms, wherever possible.
A peculiar feature of the course was that the lecturers were using terms like polarization, activation, potential energy, complexes, compounds, perhaps metaphorically and in an unrelated context. This compelled me to ask some of them if they were aware of the real sense of the terminologies which have actually been borrowed from chemistry or material sciences. As expected, they had no clue to them and this prompted me to write a few notes, related physico-chemical terminologies to those of human behavior. I was encouraged in doing so by Dr. A.H. Siddiqui, the then deputy director of the Institute, who thought it would be a valuable contribution to the field of sociology.”
“The above notes where mimeographed and they appeared as a booklet Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology in 1976. Four papers were published out of this booklet in local journals. The response from the readers was very encouraging and in the light of the comments received it transpired that the pertinent data had to be put in urgently to provide a quantitative basis to the hypothesis.”
“The origins of this work can be traced to an innocent comment made in passing in an economics seminar at Stanford University sometime in 1979 or 1980. The speaker tossed off an observation to the effect that ‘value had to be conserved’ in his model if some mathematical assumption in the model were to hold; the tone of his voice suggested that no one in his or her right mind would find a problem.(add discussion)
Like so many other assertions in economics, this one passed over without further comment, in the interests of getting on to the main topic of the seminar. For some reason, the comment haunted me afterward. I didn’t care much about the model per se, but the very notion that such an assertion would go unchallenged seemed to me of profound import. Having had some background in physics, I knew how important conversation principles were in that arena; in physics great efforts were made to render them explicit. In economics, no one to my knowledge had systematically confronted the issue, at least in the textbooks.”
“This [Laws, Men and Machines] work had a long period of gestation during which I was repeatedly led to ruminate upon the extraordinary wealth of mechanical references in American politics.”
See main: Social Newton term analysisOn 19 Aug 2014, American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims began using the term “Beg analysis”, in the Hmolpedia article on American moral philosopher and neuroscientist Joshua Greene, as a classification label to the aforementioned terminology dissection methodology, and began a Beg analysis, in table form, of Greene’s Moral Tribes, after coming across his discussion of whether or not physical “distance” should matter in regards to its action on personal “forces” and what this has to say about whether one is morally normal or morally abnormal, being that force times distance is explicitly defined by Gustave Coriolis’ 1829 principle of the transmission of work, something that, like Morowski notes in regards to conservation laws, took many centuries to ferret out; the short version of this analysis is the following:
Work (Ѻ) | 51+
Force (Ѻ) | 21+
Reaction (Ѻ) |14+
Movement (Ѻ) | 13+
Power (Ѻ) | 13+
Distance (Ѻ) | 9+
Bond (Ѻ) | 1+
Buchner, of note, seems to be jettisoning "god" as a functionable concept, yet retaining "soul" as a possible force/matter/motion-based reformulation, possibly.
Scientific terms Religious terms Elements Metaphysical Force (Ѻ) | 100+
Matter (Ѻ) | 100+
Work (Ѻ) | 88+
Power (Ѻ) | 84+
Motion (Ѻ) | 61+
Chemical (Ѻ) | 54+
Heat (Ѻ) | 40+
Mechanical (Ѻ) | 39+
Atom (Ѻ) | 33+
Energy (Ѻ) | 30+
Molecule (Ѻ) | 20+
Electricity (Ѻ) | 19+ Affinity (Ѻ) | 9+
Affinities (Ѻ) | 3+
Bond (Ѻ) | 0+Soul (Ѻ) | 75+
God (Ѻ) | 65+
Spirit (Ѻ) | 45+Hydrogen (Ѻ) | 16+
Oxygen (Ѻ) | 16+
Carbon (Ѻ) | 15+
Iron (Ѻ) | 12+
Phosphorus (Ѻ) | 3+
Sulphur (Ѻ) | 2+
Nitrogen (Ѻ) | 7+
Calcium (Ѻ) | 3+
etc.Life (Ѻ) | 100+
Death (Ѻ) | 50+
Love (Ѻ) | 21+
Evil (Ѻ) | 18+
Ether (Ѻ) | 13+
Hate (Ѻ) | 0+_________________ ______________ _________________ _________________