
Left: a Google-generated definition of derogate. Right: American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims, lecturing in 2013 to engineering students, at Northern Illinois University, on an introduction to human chemical thermodynamics, who occasionally becomes subject to derogation, depending on one's disposition to reality.

In hmolscience, Libb Thims (derogation) refers to derogative, denigrate, and or pejorative labelings of American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims, e.g. “imbecile” (IQ=35±) (Jheald

2007) or “conman” (LesPaul

2014)—as can be contrasted, on the opposite end of the spectrum, with Thims characterized, variously, as: a "polymath" (Keith Henson

2007), "genius" (Steven Pierce, 2009), "oracle" (Mark Janes, 2011), someone “decades if not a century in front of its time” (Benjamin Cresdee

2011), the person with the “highest IQ ever” (alphawolf099

2012), a "walking encyclopedia" (Milivoje Kostic, 2013), “real IQ of 202+” (NikolaTesla, 2014), among other epithets.

List
The following is a work-in-progress collection of various derogations directed at Libb Thims:

● Zero-value crackpot (Mar 2017) | Alon Amit (Ѻ)

● Delusional moron (31 Mar 2015) [IQ:60] | Dominic Anderton (Ѻ)
● Conman (May 2014) | LesPaul(Ѻ)
● Wacko (22 May 2013) | Terrence Deacon [4]
● Crank (21 Mar 2013) | Jay Labinger [4]
● Crank and complete whack job (3 Apr 2010) | Ian Forrester [5]
● Fraudster (2009) | Lawrence Chin (Ѻ)
● Senile or crazy (20 Nov 2010) | Lubos Motl [3]
● Crackpot (29 Sep 2010) | Mitch Garcia [3]

Romanticist Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)	“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 (1844), on Goethean philosophy
	Goethean Fence
Mechanistic Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906)	“Schopenhauer is a mindless, ignorant, spreader of nonsense.” — Boltzmann (1906), on Schopenhauerian philosophy
A depiction of the so-called Goethean fence divide: German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, the sole direct protégé of Goethe and his human chemical theory, on one side, and German physicist Ludwig Boltzmann on the other, labeling Schopenhauer in derogation as a “mindless, nonsensical, ignoramus”, a phenomenon reoccurring in modern times with American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims on the Goethe-Schopenhauer side of the fence, and others, on the left side of the fence, labeling Thims likewise as “mindless” (Hallenrm, 2007) or “nonsensical” (Philip Moriarty, 2009), etc., for reasons seemingly coinciding with those of Boltzmann, which is but a recapture of German writer and Christian Christoph Wieland, in 1810, describing the chemical theory used in Goethe’s Elective Affinities (1809) as “nonsense and childish fooling around”.

● Deranged (Sep 2009) | Philip Moriarty [2]
● Imbecile [IQ:35] (31 Jul 2007) | Jheald[1]
● Mindless (14 Jul 2007) | Hallenrm[1]
● Pseudo-scientist (20 Oct 2007) | Coren(Ѻ)
● Smug little thing (7 Oct 2006) Jim62sch[1]
● Lost soul (12 Jul 2006) | Frank Lambert [1]
● Pseudoscientist (21 Sep 2005) | Edward Sanville [3]

(add discussion)

Goethean fence
The difference in perspective, as outlined above, predominately, has to do with which side of the Goethean fence one tends to sit, i.e. if one is an Elective Affinities "enemy" or "admirer", or similarly a "two natures" or "one nature" philosopher, respectively; among other akin divisions, e.g. reductionist vs anti-reductionist, materialist vs spiritualist, a dualist vs monist, etc., the percentage siding of which tends to following the findings of polls such as: if one believes love is a chemical reaction (35% don’t agree), or if one believes a person is a giant molecule (43% don’t agree), etc.

The so-called Goethean fence divide is best demarcated by the standoff between Arthur Schopenhauer (The World as Will and Representation, 1844) and Karl Zollner (The Nature of Comets: Contributions to the History and Theory of Knowledge, 1872) on one side (right side) and Hermann Helmholtz (“On the Use and Abuse of the Deductive Method in Physical Science”, 1874) and Ludwig Boltzmann (“Demonstration, that Schopenhauer was a Mindless, Ignorant, Spreader of Nonsense”, 1906) on the other side (left side).

The Schopenhauer-Boltzmann divide, however, is difficult to interpret in regards to specific underlying objections, being that both Schopenhauer and Boltzmann were materialists in belief system, the difference between the two being that Schopenhauer was “first admitted and inexorable atheist among us Germans” (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1882), Boltzmann’s personal views boarded, supposedly, on some type of blurry anti-spiritualistic materialist deism. (Ѻ)

Those on the left tending to suffer from hydraism-like atrophy of the mind, with respect to the bigger questions of human meaning, those on the right tending to lack in equation precision, as compared to the exact sciences, being that the state of the discourse tends to be of the pioneering and proving ground sort of nature.

References
1. User:Sadi Carnot/Compliments – Wikipedia.
2. Moriarty-Thims debate (part three)
3. (a) Detractors
(b) Libb Thims (attack)
4. Libb Thims (attack)
5. (a) Posted by: Ian Forrester, 03 Apr 2010.
(b) Human thermodynamics (objections to)