Talk:Alchemy/Archive 6

Alchemy as protoscience and philosophy

As the sourced information in this article and History of Chemistry make it clear, alchemy had philosophical and proto-scientific aspects.

In this article, the Hellenistic Egypt section mentions that alchemy originally consisted of metallurgy, "dyeing and making artificial gemstones, cleaning and fabricating pearls, and manufacturing of imitation gold and silver," without the "mystical, philosophical elements" of later alchemy. It also identifies "alchemy's roots in Greek philosophy" such as Pythagoreanism, Platonism, and Stoicism.

Under Islam, alchemy became more firmly "based on scientific methodology and controlled experimentation in the laboratory," thanks to Jābir ibn Hayyān, who is "considered by many to be the father of chemistry." Alchemists of this era also sought to express the philosophy in clearer language (which goes against the original intention of mysticism, to hide something from those who have not been initiated into the mysteries). It is during this era that we get the word "Alchemy," from al-kīmiyā.

The European Renaissance was "The dawn of medical, pharmaceutical, occult, and entrepreneurial branches of alchemy..." Different authors took it in different directions.

During the early modern era, alchemist Robert Boyle tested a variety of empirical claims in alchemy, and what remained became the basis for modern chemistry. To treat alchemy as distinct from historical chemistry is like treating modern farming as totally unrelated to Sumerian agriculture. We don't make sacrifices to Enki anymore, but Sumer is where we got irrigation from.

Regarding the sources cited here, Cathy Gutierrez's "Plato's Ghost: Spiritualism in the American Renaissance" covers too small an area in both time and space to give an adequate overview of the history of alchemy, and alchemy is not even it's main topic. Spiritualism is Gutierrez's main topic, so that source is about as appropriate as a book about homeopathy (even if rightly skeptical and scientific) in the History of astronomy article. Essien and Umotong's "Elements of History and Philosophy of Science" is published by Lulu Press, a pay-to-print publisher which does not meet our reliable sourcing guidelines.

The following sources cover the relationship between alchemy and modern chemistry:

• John Read's "From Alchemy to Chemistry,"
• F. Sherwood Taylor's "Alchemists, Founders of Modern Chemistry,"
• Philip Ashley Fanning's "Isaac Newton and the Transmutation of Alchemy: An Alternative View of the Scientific Revolution."
• Eric John Holmyard's "Makers of Chemistry."
• M.M. Pattison Muir's "The Story of Alchemy and the Beginnings of Chemistry."
• Stanton J. Linden's "The Alchemy Reader: from Hermes Trismegistus to Isaac Newton."
• Richard Morrison's "The Last Sorcerers, The Path from Alchemy to the Periodic Table."

Many of the above sources also discuss alchemy's relationship to philosophy. The works of Mary Anne Atwood and the relevant works of A. E. Waite (when he's not just presenting primary sources), Herbert Silberer's "Hidden Symbolism of Alchemy and the Occult Arts" and R.B. Onians's "The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time, and Fate" also discuss the relationship to alchemy and philosophy. Just because it's not analytical philosophy doesn't mean that it never was philosophy. Were Albert Pike's "Morals and Dogma" edited for a generalist audience and were Manly P. Hall "Secret Teachings of All Ages" edited to remove his heavy theosophical bias, I'd also recommend those, but they're definitely not introductory like the prior works I've cited.

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@James343e: Regarding these changes:

• The lede is supposed to summarize the rest of the article instead of being it's own material.
• Alchemy wasn't just ancient, but also medieval and even early modern.
• "precursor to chemistry" is, at best, redundant to "protoscience." Alchemy is what Kuhn is referring to when he says "for example, of fields like chemistry and electricity before the mid-18th century". There wasn't a sudden moment where alchemy was replaced by chemistry, but a gradual shift over time. Looking below the most favorable interpretation, it implies a disconnection that's no different than saying that Ptolemy wasn't an astronomer because what he studied was only a precursor to astronomy, or that Isaac Newton wasn't a physicist because what he studied was only a precursor to modern physics.
• Again, Gutierrez's "Plato's Ghost: Spiritualism in the American Renaissance" is about as relevant as a book about homeopathy in the History of astronomy article. Seriously, it's continual is academic lazy.
• Of the other sources:

• Godfrey-Smith, Betz, and Shummer, Bensaude-Vincent, and Van Tiggelen use the exact works "precursor to chemistry," and Enghag comes extremely close to it, but many of those citations do not provide in-depth coverage and most by do not by any means specialize in the relationship between alchemy and chemistry (unlike the several sources I've cited). In some cases, their use of "precursor to chemistry" is in the sense of "protoscience," not necessarily in the sense of disconnection. Even where they intend to convey disconnection, they do not trump specialist sources on this matter.
• Enghag uses "alchemy" interchangably with pre-modern chemistry. Heilbronner and Miller's entire chapter is "Alchemy: the Chemistry of the Middle Ages." These sources discount disconnection between alchemy and modern chemistry. Chapter 2 of Clarke and Rossini explains that the idea of disconnection between alchemy and chemistry is an outdated view. Shummer, Bensaude-Vincent, and Van Tiggelen place alchemy's "origins in metallurgy and medicine," (Shummer, Bensaude-Vincent, Van Tiggelen p.11). I have to conclude that the result was cherry picking from a Google books search rather than actual study on the topic.

Ian.thomson (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson Do you realize you are the only one who is fully deleting (not fixing) my editions? So maybe no other editor agrees with you. You do not look like an editor who wants to achieve consensus, but to impose his one. Rather than trying to fix my editions, you try to absolutely delete them all. Rather than making a constructive criticism, you try to make a destructive criticism. "It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary

You also make ad hoc excuses for completetely deleting my editions. First, you said that I cannot use unrealible sources coming from an unreliable source like Lulu Press. When I used Oxford UNiversity Press, Springer and the like, you authomatically find another excuse ad hoc: you say that they are not experts on chemistry or they do not cover the differences between chemistry and alquemy in detail (even though the books are about the history of chemistry or general philosophy of science). That is a subjective interpretation, the only objecitve thing is that alquemy is widely considered to be a precursor of chemistry. Also, the fact that I checked the books online doesn't make unvalid the sources. The authors explicitly said that alquemy is a precursor of chemistry, and it has nothing to do with how I read the books. You remind me of what Karl Popper calls "unfalsifiable". No matter how good is my edition, you always find an excuse to delete it, and I cannot falsify your statements, since you always find new excuses ad hoc to delete my changes.

If you want to cooperate, rather than fully deleting my editions, let's try to find a COMPLETEMENTARY leading sentence which fix both your opinion and mine, not only yours.

Here is my suggestion: "Alquemy is a philosophical and protoscientific tradition that was a precursor of chemistry and practiced...". It is not redundant, but extremelly relevant to summarize the article in the leading sentence. Some people only uses Wikipedia to check fast what it is "Alquemy" not to read the whole article. The leading sentence must include its relation to chemistry, which is unpolemic.

If you want this another one is also possible: "Alquemy is a philosophical and protoscientific tradition, often considered a precursor of chemistry, that was practiced in..."

Do you have any other suggestion to fix (rather than fully delete) my editions?

Please note that we should make an effort to have a COMPLEMENTARY leading sentence which fix the opinion of all editors. Hence, I think constructive criticism is better than destructive one. James343e (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

About sources for the history of alchemy: this field of history has experienced many exciting developments in the last few years. There are many recent books on alchemy by outstanding living professional historians of science such as Lawrence Principe (Johns Hopkins University), William Newman (Indiana University), Tara Nummedal (Brown University), Pamela H. Smith (Columbia University), and others. Medieval and early modern alchemists included not only the long-known and so often parodied mystical philosophers and charlatans, but also famous figures such as Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle, as well as many lesser-known artisans who worked productively and successfully on pharmacy, metallurgy, ceramics, etc. for practical purposes and for princes. These new developments in our understanding of the history of alchemy are only partly represented by the current Wikipedia article. The sources cited in that article are mostly old, and often written by poorly informed authors.Ajrocke (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@James343e: Your posts demonstrates that you either have not read anything I written or are having serious difficulty following what I'm saying. If you aren't going to read anything I write in good faith, then you are the fundamental problem here. You need to learn to communicate, which includes more than posting irrelevant screed, it requires listening/reading.

Re You do not look like an editor who wants to achieve consensus, but to impose his one. -- see WP:Assume good faith, a foundational site policy. Such words are an indication that you're not really trying to see things from other's perspectives, a key element in collaboration.

Re You also make ad hoc excuses for completetely deleting my editions -- You're the one adjusting your tactics to justify your original position that alchemy is distinct from pre-modern chemistry. Your failure to find adequate sourcing or phrasing is not a fault on my part. Also, you seem to be under the impression that the names of fallacies are magic words to win arguments. Even if that were the case, you have to pay attention to what someone actually says in order to do that. At any rate, this isn't an experiment for a theory, this is a work of literature to summarize the position of sources, many of which you refuse to acknowledge, and the ones you cite are demonstrably cherry-picked and out of context. If this were an experiment, you would be ignoring the most pertenent and pointing to outliers that vaguely resemble your hypothesis.

That you even need to argue the fact that I checked the books online doesn't make unvalid the sources is a sign that you're not actually reading my posts and don't even seem to be aware that I've also cited sources. This provides further evidence for my actual problem with the sources: that you have completely ignored their context both internal and external.

The only source I could possibly be honestly interpreted as having dismissed because they are not experts on chemistry is Plato's Ghost, which again, is about Spiritualism. If you can't tell the difference between that and alchemy, you should stay away from any esoteric, occult, and probably even religious or philosophical articles. It's like citing a source about Mormonism in an article on Ptolemy, or the Nuwaubian Nation in an article on Taoism. Even if the latter was in some small way influenced by the former, sources on the former are not sources on the latter.

I never complained that the sources do not cover the differences between chemistry and alquemy in detail. I said "relationship," and demonstrated that the sources that start to go into detail explain that pre-modern chemistry was alchemy (i.e. no difference). That you say "differences" betrays that you are still operating from the position that there is a difference between alchemy and pre-modern chemistry, which (as Ajrocke and I have both explained) does not reflect specialist scholarship (especially current scholarship). Per WP:DUE, the alchemy article would give priority to sources about alchemy over sources about unrelated topics like Spiritualism, and over sources that only mention alchemy in passing. We also are supposed to summarize everything the work has to say on the topic instead of cherry-picking three words and calling it a day.

And again, the lede summarizes the body of article. If you want to change the lede, you need to demonstrate how the body of the article supports your wording. As both Ajrocke and I have explained, the article doesn't support implying that alchemy was something distinct from pre-modern chemistry -- either currently or especially if updated with the most prudent scholarship.

Many of the points I've stated above are things I've already said, which you've refused to even acknowledge, let alone address. As long as you're being bull-headed about this, compromise will be impossible. Actually read what people say instead of cherry-picking whatever you can find to make strawman arguments with. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, the lede (if you read more than the first sentence) already covers alchemy's relationship to modern science: In Europe, following the 12th-century Renaissance produced by the translation of Islamic works on science and the Recovery of Aristotle, alchemists played a significant role in early modern science (particularly chemistry and medicine). Islamic and European alchemists developed a structure of basic laboratory techniques, theory, terminology, and experimental method, some of which are still in use today. The first sentence of any explanatory work (be it an encyclopedia or a technical manual) should be as succinct a summary as possible. "Protoscience" covers the quoted portion quite well, without implying that alchemy and pre-modern chemistry are distinct (as "precursor to chemistry" potentially does). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: "Protoscience covers the quoted portion quite well, without implying that alchemy and pre-modern chemistry are distinct (as precursor to chemistry potentially does)." What are you talking about? "Precursor to chesmitry" does not suggest that pre-modern chemistry and alchemy are distinct, precursor to chemistry suggests that alquemy is a precursor to modern chesmitry, since chemistry is a scientific discipline. If it is not scientific, we are talking about other thing. Is that your excuse to delete not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six but seven references?

"Such words are an indication that you're not really trying to see things from other's perspectives, a key element in collaboration." Are you kidding? Have YOU tried to see things from others perspectives? You only try to impose your own criterion making ad hoc excuses to avoid refutation, just like a pseudoscientist like Freud would do. You did not change partially but totally my editions, proving my point: you don't want to collaborate but to impose your own criterion. Again, the fact that I read the books online does not prove that the sources were invalid. That is an argument ad hominem, you are critizicing my person not the sources per se. If X says Y, you must criticize Y not only X. It does not matter if I read the books online or in paper, if I read the books fast or carefully. If the sources are valid, they will remain valid, regardless of how I read them. Seven sources. Some of them could be invalid, but not all, which proves you are doing vandalism. I will stop this conversation since this is a waste of time. Some of us have a life outside Wikipedia. I let you "win" this debate online, only because I have other things more important to do than continuing an edit war with you. If that makes you happy, congratulations.

From what I see from your form of writing and poor logic (you use a lot of fallacies), you will never write any great work from an intellectual point of view, nobody will remember your works when you are dead. The reason is obvious: you don't write to find the truth, but to win a debate. In that sense, you resemble a contemporary sophist. Have a nice day. James343e (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@James343e:

the fact that I read the books online does not prove that the sources were invalid - That you keep using that strawman argument shows that you're not actually here to improve the encyclopedia but to argue, and that you have not honestly read or comprehended what I've written. Please, quote where I made that argument. You've had ample opportunity to do so and yet you've failed in that respect.

How can you pretend to be so mature and logical when all you can do is sneak back after a month and hope I don't respond to your intellectually dishonest argument that indicates effective illiteracy on your part?

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Flamel

"Although the historical Flamel existed, the writings and legends assigned to him only appeared in 1612."

Actually at least as early as 1561, as this front cover shows (Wikimedia Commons). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Vague lead

The lead fails to explain the origins of alchemy in 4th century Ptolemaic Egypt.70.49.181.61 (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

LGBT in alchemy

Where is LGBT in alchemy? 108.200.234.93 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead-Gold Base Transmutations? If you were thinking of specific historical figures and think they're significant to the topic, feel at liberty to add them (with references, natch). 82.42.82.82 (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Alchemy's zenith was at a time when most of the cultures that practiced it were rather homophobic (e.g. medieval Europe and the Middle East), or at least so in comparison to the modern era in their heteronormativity (e.g. China). Alchemy also tends to divide everything into cosmic opposites (be it Yin/Yang, mercury/sulfur), which were light/dark, hot/cold, wet/dry, --- and male/female -- with the belief that these opposites had to be balanced for the universe to work right. Sometimes this was explicitly sexual, though (although in the west it was largely later Victorian and modern writers who claimed that authors like Thomas Vaughn were really some sort of western Tantrists). If alchemists had commented on homosexuality, it would not have been pleasant. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemical literature

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alchemical literature is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemical literature. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Scholars do not longer view historical alchemy as 'pseudoscience'

@Headbomb: so the Britannica article on alchemy puts the word 'pseudoscience' in its subheader, only to leave out any other mention of the word throughout the article. You say Britannica is "amongst several others" in thus characterizing alchemy as pseudoscience, but the question is, are any of these 'others' more prominent and reliable than WP:BRITANNICA? I wonder if you could cite even one actual historian of alchemy characterizing alchemy as pseudoscience? Here's, on the other hand, what two of the leading experts on the topic say:

[...] Shapin's recent survey, The Scientific Revolution (1996), merely reinforces this point. Alchemy makes a brief appearance here among the “pseudosciences,” whose interaction with the “proper sciences” such as chemistry was “intensely problematic.” Shapin may be relating what he views as broad seventeenth-century categories, but if so, he is badly mistaken. In fact, the imposition of a meaningful distinction between alchemy and chemistry is highly anachronistic for most of the seventeenth century, and especially for Boyle, whose transmutational quest extended from his earliest laboratory training at the hands of the American chymist George Starkey up until his death in 1691. Shapin’s imposition of modern categories onto seventeenth-century chymistry is particularly ironic in view of his own extensively argued case for a “contextualist” history of science that would avoid the anachronistic excesses of those historians who have focused on the internal development of their subject. One might expect that Shapin’s oft-stated respect for historical context and actors’ categories would have steered him away from employing the dated yet modern distinction between “pseudoscience” and the so-called “proper sciences.” Yet a closer reading of his theoretical writings reveals a point of paramount importance that helps to explain this lapse—Shapin’s method consists largely of adding sociological explanations to the preexisting history of ideas rather than subjecting the results of intellectual history to critical analysis.

Newman, William R. (2006). Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-226-57697-8.

Alchemy now holds an important place in the history of science. Its current status contrasts with its former exile as “pseudoscience” or worse and results from several rehabilitative steps carried out by scholars who made closer, less programmatic, and more innovative studies of the documentary sources. Interestingly, alchemy’s outcast status was created in the eighteenth century and perpetuated thereafter in part for strategic and polemical reasons –and not only on account of a lack of historical understanding. Alchemy’s return to the fold of the history of science highlights important features about the development of science and our changing understanding of it.

Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Alchemy Restored". Isis. 102 (2): 305–312. doi:10.1086/660139. PMID 21874690. S2CID 23581980.

Of course not everyone agrees about everything with Newman and Principe. However, when it comes to rejecting the characterization of historical alchemy as 'pseudoscience', I know of no historian of alchemy who does not follow their lead, or who has made any counter-argument. The last 20–30 years have seen a sea-change in the whole approach of historians, where the projection of modern (often 18th-/19th-century) polemical categories on historical subjects has become thoroughly rejected.

There may be some room in the article to elaborate on 19th-/20th-century alchemy, which comes somewhat closer to being a 'pseudoscience', though the fact that the grand majority of latter-day alchemists –erroneously– insist that alchemy is either primarily or strictly spiritual also means that they do not normally claim alchemy to be 'scientific', which most adherents of pseudosciences do. In that sense, the article may deserve a place in category:pseudoscience, if significant coverage of modern alchemy as a pseudoscience is found and put to use in the article. But we are going to need better sources than Britannica for that.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd need to have a discussion of alchemy as pseudoscience drawn up from recent secondary sources - not tertiary ones - added to the article to support the category. See WP:CATV. Lacking such an addition to the article to support the category, anyone may and should remove it. Skyerise (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are perfectly acceptable, but if you want a secondary one [1] is from 2013 (or from 2002). Being protoscience and having a place in the history of science does not preclude being pseudoscience either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you and @Apaugasma: collaborate on a section describing the evolution of the opinions about whether or not it is a psuedoscience. Once that's written, we'll have a better idea which view currently predominates and whether its appropriate to add the category. In any case, putting your citations in edit summaries or on the talk page isn't sufficient. The reason for the category needs to be clearly explained and cited in the article text. Since it's disputed, it shouldn't go in the lead, probably a section titled "Protoscience or pseudoscience?" somewhere in the body of the article. Skyerise (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not an either or thing. It's a both thing. The sources support having the category. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure it is. Some sources support it, and others oppose it. In any case, until it is supported in the article text, the category has no place on the article. Skyerise (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with both of you. Above, I've cited two of the foremost experts on the topic (William R. Newman & Lawrence M. Principe), and 'balancing' their views with those of biologist and popular science author Peter Daempfle [2] or the backcover of a 1932 (not 2002!) book by the physician and amateur historian Charles J. S. Thompson [3] would be wholly and completely WP:UNDUE.

We should also most definitely not be originally researching some "Protoscience or pseudoscience?" section, but rather report on what expert scholars write about (modern) alchemy. If, and only if, they elaborate on modern alchemy's status as a 'pseudoscience', we should elaborate on it too.

The current focus on this question arises entirely of editorial concerns and POVs, rather than from a careful investigation of the scholarly literature on modern alchemy. This will always reflect poorly upon Wikipedia articles. We could leave in the category, which is harmless enough and may be helpful precisely because it is in line with common misconceptions, but please do not add any undue material to the article about this. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm entirely fine leaving the article as is. But the category should remain. There's zero reason for why it could only be included only if 'it is supported in the article text'. It already is supported by the article text anyway. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

See also The oldest known use of the English word “pseudoscience” dates from 1796, when the historian James Pettit Andrew referred to alchemy as a “fantastical pseudo-science” (Oxford English Dictionary). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Britannica is not particularly examplary especially today (and WP policies are what guide WP articles, of course). However, the article can certainly put in context the classical alchemy of its time and modern references (I'm sure some sources do). —PaleoNeonate – 19:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Alchemical symbols for elements

Skyerise, regarding this is the lead, the symbols are mentioned later in the article and should be in the summary: the article does not treat the topic of alchemical symbols for elements, which is one of its many gaps. Also, these elemental symbols were developed by European alchemists in the 15th/16th century (that is to say, relatively late, and not by Islamic alchemists), and some of which are still in use today does not apply to them: as far as I know, none of them is still used today. So it is both unsourced and misleading. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course they are still used. There are still alchemists. Skyerise (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's see, looking up the symbols, the elemental ones are used in both astrology and magic, and the planetary ones are used in astronomy. Skyerise (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The still in use today applies to the laboratory techniques and (scientific) theories and terminology. If we would be talking about the use of the elemental symbols in modern magic and occultism, we would need to clarify that. But we're not, and there's nothing about it in the entire article: now it's unsourced and utterly misleading. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)