|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.|
If, to go through one hypothetical case scenario, albeit one based on an aggregate summation of actual publications, one professes on the political “power” of China, mentioning, along the way, the economic “bond” between American and Europe, in which digression is made on the “force” of Middle Eastern terrorism, as this connects to the stored “energy” of GDP of Brazil, which the theorist asserts is related to the “entropy” of Mexico and the “enthalpy” of Australia, both been influenced by the “pressure” and “temperature” of war-like “state” of North Korea, which in some way derives from the “force” of the implosion of Japan at the end of WWII, itself related to the “friction” arisen amid WWI, deriving from the increasing loss of “work” following the Bolshevik revolution, which the theorist believes is related to the “free energy” of late 18th century France, albeit hindered by the “bound energy” of pre-dark age Greece, which the professor inserts, via citation, is hypothetically related to the “transition state” of 1st Dynasty Egypt, which someone, long forgotten in the past, evidenced as being based on the “reaction” between sodium and water, with mention of the Mpemba effect, at the end of which the professor concludes with a physically incorrect assertion about the nature of the power of the energy of the bond, changing by force, of the work done by society in a given state, then an obvious and immediate correction to reality must be digressed upon.
Beg analysis, i.e. the explicit focus on the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of physico-chemical sciences terms used by humanities scholars, in a specific field, was done, independently, by Mirza Beg (1987), in sociology, Philip Mirowski (1989), in economics, Duncan Michael Foley (1991), in government, respectively, and as methodology, termed "Beg analysis", per synthesis of the previous three, by Libb Thims (2014) in a growing numbers of analysis.
Beg analysis, in more detail, is the analysis and dissection of the work of a humanities scholar—or an entire humanities field, e.g. sociology, economics, government or politics—in which scholars unawaringly employ and use physical science and or physicochemical terms and terminology, whether via implicit analogy, unconscious analogy, or metaphor (e.g. thermal words), or explicit realism modelling, e.g. what “force” moved you to go to “work” today (see: Library walk problem), in their presentation and or argument, by a trained physical science or physicochemical scientists or from the physical sciences purview.
Beg | Sociology
The so-called “Beg analysis” method was pioneered by Indian-born Pakistani organometallic chemist Mirza Beg, who in 1974, via happenstance, was invited to attend some type of business or government leadership course, wherein an unusually large number of physical chemistry like terms were being employed to explain business or government operation. Beg explains this as follows: 
“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.”
These four articles, referred to above, are: “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology” (1979), “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology: Assimilation” (1980), “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology: Affinity, Free Energy Changes, Equilibria, and Human Behaviour” (1981), each published in Pakistan Management Review, along with a fourth 1982 article published in Pakistan Marketing Review.  All of this effort culminated in his magnum opus the 1987 New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior. 
Mirowski | Economics
In 1989, American economics historian Philip Mirowski published his densely-woven More Heat Than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature's Economics, a book written during a six-year gestation period, originated via a passing 1979 remark about how value, in economics, must be conserved, the term “conservation” here attempting to make a faint implicit connection to the conservation laws of physics, without explicitly stating so. Mirowski explains this as follows: 
“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.”
Foley | Government
In 1990, English political scholar Michael Foley, in the acknowledgement section to his Laws, Men and Machines: Modern American Government and the Appeal of Newtonian Mechanics, stated how he was led into the writing of this book because in his earlier research he kept coming across repeated usage of mechanical analogy references in American politics: 
“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.”
The American presidents originating from the so-called Princeton school of social physics would seem to be the bulk of the topic of discussion here.
Social Newton | Beg analysis
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+
In 2015, Thims expanded on this so-named "Beg analysis" of Greene to do a Beg analysis or key term analysis of some top social Newtons to show their respective change in "term" focus, comparatively, over time (see: Social Newton term analysis); the following, e.g. is the Beg analysis or "social Newton term analysis" of the 1855 Force and Matter of German physicist Ludwig Buchner (SN:9):
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+
Life (Ѻ) | 100+
Death (Ѻ) | 50+
Love (Ѻ) | 21+
Evil (Ѻ) | 18+
Ether (Ѻ) | 13+
Hate (Ѻ) | 0+
_________________ ______________ _________________ _________________
In 2016, Thims did a partial Beg analysis of 2014 political thermodynamics theory of Randall Schweller.
1. Beg, Mirza Arshad Ali. (1987). New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior (abs) (intro) (pdf, annotations by Libb Thims, 2014) (training course, pg. vi). Karachi: The Hamdard Foundation.
2. (a) Beg, Mirza A.A. (1979). “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology”, Pakistan Management Review, 20, 2nd Qtr.
(b) Beg, M. Arshad Ali. (1980). “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology: Assimilation” (Ѻ), Pakistan Management Review, 21(3):5-##.
(c) Beg, M. Arshad Ali. (1981). “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology: Affinity, Free Energy Changes, Equilibria, and Human Behaviour” (Ѻ), Pakistan Management Review, 22(4):17-##.
(d) Beg, M. Arshad Ali. (1982). “Article Title”, Pakistan Management Review, 1, 32, Jan.
3. Mirowski, Philip. (1989). More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature’s Economics (pg. 2). Cambridge University Press.
4. Foley, Michael. (1990). Laws, Men and Machines: Modern American Government and the Appeal of Newtonian Mechanics (entropy, pg. 199-200). Routledge, 2014.