The noble purpose of SII to provide access to core ideas from science cannot be fulfilled in some cases since the core ideas themselves are confused. Consider chemical thermodynamics. Gibbs introduced the fundamental equation

dU = TdS - PdV + SUM mu_i dn_i /1/

for a system IN EQUILIBRIUM, and was wondering all along whether the entropy might have any meaning at all for a system distant from equilibrium. Then someone found it suitable to apply eq. /1/ to chemical reactions distant from equilibrium, although he/she certainly did not know what dS might mean in this case. In the absence of an ad hoc definition, the old and only available definition

dS = dQrev/T /2/

filled the gap, although Qrev plus "reaction distant from equilibrium" certainly form an oxymoron. As a result, although the name "equilibrium thermodynamics" has been preserved, this science essentially deals with reactions distant from equilibrium and the original oxymoron has taken multiple forms, to student's horror (let alone the general public). In contrast, the so-called non-equilibrium thermodynamics says that reactions distant from equilibrium are difficult to deal with, and reduces its activity to systems very close to equilibrium where the Onsager's relations can be applied. Too much absurdity is paralysing so things are not going to change.

Pentcho Valev