The alchemists developed some important techniques like distillation and they gained an insight in to the smelting and the isolation of elements and
the making of bases, acids, etc.
The theory of phlogiston was only debunked at the end of the 18th century.
Things then moved on rapidly but if you measure progress in the 19th and early 20th century compared with the late 20th century it moved at a glacial
pace.
For example, simple alkaloids like nicotine, strychnine, quinine had to be broken apart and then the fragments analysed. After a lot of analysis and
deductions it was possible to derive
the original compounds structure.
Really these early structural determinations stand as almost heroic efforts in chemistry, as do the first complete syntheses of natural products.
A lot of the drive for chemical development wasn't coming from the alchemists - they were too hung up on the metaphysical meanings behind their
experiments and trying to convince themselves that their reactions were following their beautiful theories when in fact the explanations were
completely wrong.
The major drive in chemistry once alchemy had matured to the point where it was hindering science instead of helping it came from the applied
chemistry of brewing and medicine
Look at Isaac Newton; arguably the creator of classical mechanics and with Liebnitz the creator of calculus but he held a lot of unconventional views.
He held some strange religious views, was a Uniitarian and believed in alchemy, etc.
What you’re saying is basically anti-historical tosh. You’re also tarring the many with a broad brush for the misdemeanors of the few. There were
certainly hoaxers and ‘gold makers’ but even today, when it should be easier to detect, science still suffers such fools (see ‘polywater’,
‘cold fusion’ and a whole raft of others)
Yes, there was a strong metaphysical component in the alchemist world view, as there was in just about anyone at that time who studied ‘Natural
Philosophy’. That carried on well into the era of Modernity, BTW. Newton, arguably the greatest physicist second to Einstein, as suggested by
Squirrel, was deeply into finding hidden messages in the Bible, ferchrissakes!
You don’t find it amazing that there are alchemical references to Aqua Regia going back to the 14th Century, for instance?
I do find it highly amazing, like I said I know where my roots lay but I have also studied a large amount of Alchemy and the conclusion I always
return to when it boils down to the most well known Alchemist is that they where frauds. Sure they did a great service to modern chemistry but they
had to pay the bills as well and since the majority of them where being backed by people of wealth they had to produce results sooner or later and
that they did.
They did this in ways we see in the opening post, making Mercury amalgams and boiling off the stone "transmuting" it into gold, or a variety of other
underhanded methods to keep the cash train flowing.
I do have a greater respect for those of the old then I do people like the one in the OP. He is stealing from the weak and uneducated where as the old
Alchemist of the past where stealing from the overly rich and powerful. I have little conscious when it comes to stealing from those who do not
deserve the wealth they have.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
My bread and butter comes from objects/furniture conservation and from experience playing with mercury or "fire gilding" using both gold leaf and gold
powder added to Hg. One can get a lot of gold to amalgamate before the viscosity changes dramatically. The gold does go right into "solution".
Once while attempting the repair of a lifted/missing section of a Sn/Hg mirror, I thought to try some Ag leaf applied traditionally with gelatin/water
size. I did not think it would last but was curious. Within seconds of the leaf contacting the adjacent intact Sn/Hg film, the Ag began to discolor
and ultimately flake off. Tried isolating the intact edge with an acrylic resin and repeated but the vapor pressure is so high (and the resin
permeable) that the silver reacted as before. Aluminized Mylar (reversed) might have worked.
The alchemists always make the distinction between our mercury and your mercury, our gold and your gold, our water that does not wet the hands and
your water. Our fire, the secret fire and your elemental fire.
The highest goal of the alchemist was to make the fifth element, “invert nature and you will have what you seek”
The alchemists always make the distinction between our mercury and your mercury, our gold and your gold, our water that does not wet the hands and
your water. Our fire, the secret fire and your elemental fire.
The highest goal of the alchemist was to make the fifth element, “invert nature and you will have what you seek”
Seems to me this is more about 'your alchemy' than about actual alchemy, with its many diverse strands, its evolution in time, interesting
technological achievements and its eventual morphing into something that's basically early chemistry.
Next you'll drag 'dungeons and dragons' into it too!
Nonsense, I see....What then is the philosophers stone (lapis philosophorum)???
Btw I studied alchemy for 15 years so probably know a little about it
Um i kinda thought you would have run out of alchemy to study after a year or so, nvm everyone works at their own pace, stick with it. Reminds me of
that seinfeld episode where krammer has the big shoes and slurry speech from the dentist and gets mistaken for well soneone who studued alchemy for
fifteen years.
You're doing a great job
I'm just kidding around.
The alchemists developed some important techniques like distillation and they gained an insight in to the smelting and the isolation of elements and
the making of bases, acids, etc.
Jabir ibn Hayyan invented the alembic for distillation of mineral acids; he
was the first to synthesize sulfuric acid. This was an advance over the kerotakis, essentially a pot with a cold lid adapted to capture condensate.
The later alchemists laid all the groundwork about the theory of conservation of mass by chemical species that later Lavoisier completed. This last
generation of alchemists invented the analytical balance, include the cabinet to keep out air drafts. See Principe and Newman's book Alchemy Tried
in the Fire for a very good treatment about the development of these ideas.
For the record, polemics against alchemy were instigated by Boyle for political purposes. There's no need at this point to continue an old feud.
For the record, polemics against alchemy were instigated by Boyle for political purposes. There's no need at this point to continue an old feud.
I’m pretty sure it wasn’t just Boyle either.
D4RR3N and Sedit look at alchemy very much through a modern lens, thereby doing it an injustice. Wiki’s entry on ‘Modern’ alchemy is quite to
the point:
Due to the complexity and obscurity of alchemical literature, and the eighteenth century disappearance of remaining alchemical practitioners into the
area of chemistry; the general understanding of alchemy in the general public, modern practitioners, and also many historians of science, have been
strongly influenced by several distinct and radically different interpretations.[90] Hundreds of books including adulterated translations of classical
alchemical literature were published throughout the early nineteenth century.[20] Many of these continue to be reprinted today by esoteric book
publishing houses, along with modern books on spiritual alchemy and poor translations of older alchemical texts. These are then used as sources by
modern authors to support spiritual interpretations. Over half of the books on alchemy published since 1970 support spiritual interpretations, mostly
using previously adulterated documents to support their conclusions. Many of these books continue to be taken seriously, even appearing in university
bookshelves.[91]
Esoteric interpretations of alchemy remains strong to this day, and continue to influence both the public and academic perceptions of the history of
alchemy. Today, numerous esoteric alchemical groups continue to perpetuate modern interpretations of alchemy, sometimes merging in concepts from New
Age or radical environmentalism movements.[92] Rosencrutzians and freemasons have a continued interest in alchemy and its symbolism.”
Completely untrue, I in no way, shape, or form look at alchemy in a modern lens it is you who does so viewing it as the for-father of modern
chemistry. I know the metaphysical meanings of there symbolism, I can fluently read many of there obscure text and I have learned from years of study
that most where crooks. I am certain that the fabled philosophers stone was in fact Mercury sulfide. This sort of knowledge does not come from guess
work it comes from years of study!
Modern chemistry is what put the happy face on a study which was traveling in the wrong direction with a primary end goal of greed. If the gold was
never made they without a doubt learned how to make gold from there effects just in a more dishonest way.
I give them much credit for there discovers but you give them to much credit.
BTW: I have a copy of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim book De occulta philosophia libri tres sitting in front of me as we speak so please do
not assume my information comes from modern interpretations of the old Alchemy text.
[Edited on 7-12-2011 by Sedit]
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
[/rquote]Jabir ibn Hayyan invented the alembic for distillation of mineral acids; he was the first to synthesize sulfuric acid. This was an
advance over the kerotakis, essentially a pot with a cold lid adapted to capture condensate.[/rquote]
Well,he (Jabir Ibn Hayyan) also invented a kind of paper that resisted fire, and an ink that could be read at night. He invented an additive which,
when applied to an iron surface, inhibited rust and when applied to a textile, would make it water repellent.
He noted the use of manganese dioxide in glassmaking, to counteract the green tinge produced by iron, a process that is still used today.Several
technical Arabic terms introduced by Jabir, such as alkali, have found their way into various European languages and have become part of scientific
vocabulary.
Not to mention,he is the one who first turn alchemy into experimental science.
Modern chemistry is what put the happy face on a study which was traveling in the wrong direction with a primary end goal of greed. If the gold was
never made they without a doubt learned how to make gold from there effects just in a more dishonest way.
Your assertion that there was some distinct turning point is simply risible, Sedit. It’s pure kvetch. The evolution of the knowledge base called
science is by and large a continuum. As humans we like to identify ‘milestones’ and ‘turning points’ because we like to simplify the complex
into bite size bits. Alchemy was a precursor to modern chemistry, despite its hoaxers and now defunct metaphysical world view (more prominent in some
strands than in others).
As regards greed, what purpose do you think the overwhelming majority of science is about today? Did think it’s about happy tinkering with chemicals
like we do here? No, it’s all about generating WEALTH. No great difference there either…
Well, sort of. The overwhelming majority of science today is applied to production - making a product that people need or desire, and making it
better, faster, or cheaper.
Alchemy seems to have had two branches - one that was interested in pure research and discovery, like the ideal vision of today's university research.
Like today's university research, they were funded by people who were interested in funding discovery or were self-funded, and there was no real
expectation of profit at the end, only discovery. (That's the ideal vision - funding for today's university research is also drifting more and more to
funding only applied science).
The second branch was the hucksters and pseudo-scientists, the ones who got money by fraud, claiming that their knowledge of "secret" processes made
possible things that were too good to be true - elixirs of eternal life, edible gold that would cure all diseases, gold from base metals. We have
those today as well - perpetual motion machines, free energy machines, weight loss pills, secret-formula supplements, and numerous other scams from
people claiming that their "special knowledge" makes possible things which "science" claims is impossible, and bilking people out of their money
either by selling worthless products or by pretending to do research on useless ideas.
Then as now, sometimes its a little difficult to tell the difference between the two groups.
Well, sort of. The overwhelming majority of science today is applied to production - making a product that people need or desire, and making it
better, faster, or cheaper.
Products that people need or desire, or needs and desires that have also been produced?
Nonsense, I see....What then is the philosophers stone (lapis philosophorum)???
Btw I studied alchemy for 15 years so probably know a little about it
Um i kinda thought you would have run out of alchemy to study after a year or so, nvm everyone works at their own pace, stick with it. Reminds me of
that seinfeld episode where krammer has the big shoes and slurry speech from the dentist and gets mistaken for well soneone who studued alchemy for
fifteen years.
You're doing a great job
I'm just kidding around.
You have probably not read one single ancient alchemical text so I forgive you totally, try reading one and after the first chapter I bet you give up
not being able to understand what the alchemist is talking about, and no its not because he is crazy its because it is wrote in code and only for
those who understand the code.....read a few and you will understand why it took me so long to understand it
Dr Sigismund Backstrom speaks most clearly on the subject so recommend you read his writings but please approach the texts understanding that it is
written in code!
If you have no knowledge of metaphysics/occult you have zero chance of understanding any of it
But there WAS a turning point blogfast, and If I'm not mistaken the book I have sitting in front of me once again is the man that made this great
turning point from Alchemy to chemistry possible. His name is Antoine Lavoisier and the book I have is Elements of Chemistry.
He IIRC single handedly implemented the Scientific method in chemistry.(I could be wrong) but what I am trying to say is that this great leap when the
Scientific method started to be employed is when Alchemy died and modern chemistry started.
You seem convinced that I give the Alchemist no credit at all and this is simply not true, I love them and have a passion for studying there works
because I feel some of there metaphysical parts of the "science" had validity. I study astrology and am a firm believer, not because of what the older
text state but because of my own study, I believe in cyclic time and use astrology as nothing more then a way of keeping track of these cycles. So I
assure you I do not hate Alchemy, I just don't fully agree with much of the practices of it. Yet while at the same time I'm sure you will outright
dismiss astrology due to modern views on it and a lack of understanding its roots, its ability, and its shortcomings.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
But there WAS a turning point blogfast, and If I'm not mistaken the book I have sitting in front of me once again is the man that made this great
turning point from Alchemy to chemistry possible. His name is Antoine Lavoisier and the book I have is Elements of Chemistry.
He IIRC single handedly implemented the Scientific method in chemistry.(I could be wrong) [...]
Don't take
too much offense, but you are wrong. It's easy to be wrong, I'll admit, because there has been downright obfuscation about the history of
chemistry. The book I referenced above has the following quotation as its frontispiece. It's from Lavoisier, with clarifying comments added by the
authors. I've transcribed it exactly as it appears.
Quote:
We are astonished, in reading the Treatise [ Joan Baptista Van Helmont's Ortus medicinae ], to find an infinite number of facts, which we are
accustomed to consider as more modern, and we cannot forebear to acknowledge, that Van Helmont has related, at that period, almost every thing, which
we are now acquainted with, on this subject [ i.e. "airs" ] . . . It is easy to see that almost all the discoveries of this kind, which we have
usually attributed to Mr. Boyle, really belong to Van Helmont, and that the latter has even carried his theory much farther.
Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Essays Physical and Chemical
Van Helmont was the person who coined the word "gas" for the state of matter (from Greek "chaos"). Boyle was born in 1627. Van Helmont died in
1644, the year that Boyle took up science.
No offense taken, I knew I could have been wrong about the one who was first to implement the scientific method that's why I added the caveat to my
sentence, but none the lest the logic still holds true.
The advent of the scientific method is what made modern chemistry and all those previous alchemist that started to follow the scientific method are
the real heroes in this story not those who continued on the wrong path even after most had been disproved.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
But there WAS a turning point blogfast, and If I'm not mistaken the book I have sitting in front of me once again is the man that made this great
turning point from Alchemy to chemistry possible. His name is Antoine Lavoisier and the book I have is Elements of Chemistry.
[snip]
The advent of the scientific method is what made modern chemistry and all those previous alchemist that started to follow the scientific method are
the real heroes in this story not those who continued on the wrong path even after most had been disproved.
No, not really, the ‘turning point’ really exists largely in your mind. Lavoisier’s adoption of what is now called the Scientific method is
largely the continuation of the increasingly quantitative work done by his predecessors, the latter end of alchemy.
You’ve been taught this because we like to simplify things and because this is after all a world of ‘heroes and villains’, is it not? (Hint: it
is not).
Tidbits about Lavoisier:
In his list of elements, he included light. You can see in that almost a literal remnant or echo of an earlier interpretation of what was supposed to
be an element: something fundamental, a building block. He wasn’t really wrong: photons are quite ‘elemental’.
His interpretation of what was ‘cold’ was spectacularly wrong. But the ‘calorifique’ that he named and he was trying in vain to identify still
lends its root to the ‘calory’.
Alchemy as others have pointed out is NOT the father of chemistry, alchemical text have metaphysical meanings and when the alchemist is talking about
mercury he is not talking about Hg, When he is talking about Sulphur he is not talking about S and when he is talking about gold he is not talking
about Au. Almost every alchemists informs his readers that this is so however have you actually read any ancient alchemical text and if so which ones.
Seems like there are a lot of “experts” in alchemy here who have never read even one alchemical text!
You’re no more an ‘expert’ on alchemy than I am. Your selective reading and interpretation and cherry picking of ‘evidence’ is completely
reductionist. You seem, in short, totally incapable of understanding what Watson.fawkes and myself are writing about.
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
