2.1.3 Weak Points and Counterarguments
Argument: Alchemy is just a mystical practice from a long time ago
Rebuttal: The history of alchemy demonstrates that the practice has drastically changed throughout the years. The popular perception of alchemy was that it was based on mystical nonsense. At best, it was perceived as a pointless chase after gold that added little to the evolution of science. Alchemy is now mostly accepted as an important component of the evolution of science. However, there are still some critics who raise concerns involving whether alchemy has truly contributed to modern-day chemistry.
Argument: Alchemy has too strong of a tie with religious/occult practices to be anything scientific
Rebuttal: Originally, alchemy was connected with witchcraft, necromancy, and other practices and notions labeled the ‘occult’ or occult sciences. Some believe that if you try to re-establish alchemy as a science, you are dismissing alchemy’s original roots in magic and the occult. Some believed that those who practiced alchemy, like Francis Bacon, also sought a means to connect it with their religion. However, by doing this, they were engaging in an activity that was unorthodox, according to their institution’s rules. In Franciscans and the Elixir of Life, Zachary A. Matus claimed that alchemy was constantly outlawed in a succession of Franciscan ordinances passed between 1260 and 1337. While alchemy included many different practices, there are some recurring themes in the reports from 1295 to 1318. These reports link alchemy to the occult (Campbell, 2018). Those who are hesitant to recognize alchemy’s significance in the formation of modern chemistry are not completely rejecting alchemical results. Rather, they are stating that those who postulate a link between alchemy and chemistry are oversimplifying things that pertain to a complex topic.
Argument: Alchemists discovered concepts that led to chemistry by accident and did not use scientific methods like a hypothesis in their experiments
Rebuttal: A common misconception is that alchemists stumbled upon results that were later proven by chemists. This was a common interpretation from the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Eventually, the conclusion was that the accomplishments of alchemists were neither chemistry nor science and in some cases, had nothing to do with the physical realm. Many historians have attempted to measure alchemy’s achievements by tracing the earliest emergence of a product or method. However, it was pointed out that these outlying “firsts” only further supported the idea that alchemists discovered things by mistake. They go on to say that the retrieval of such useful contributions left the majority of alchemical texts, theories, and procedures largely unclear (Principe 2011). Biased behavior and outdated theories of alchemy are mostly to blame for obstacles in realizing that alchemy played a major role in what we now consider chemistry and critical procedures in science that are still used today.
Argument: The analogy of astrology and astronomy to alchemy and chemistry
Rebuttal: Another counterargument is that alchemy’s relationship to chemistry should be considered analogous to astrology’s relationship to astronomy: that is, that astrology and astronomy were initially the same practice and they diverged over time, leaving astrology as a pseudoscience and astronomy as a science. However, this analogy ignores the nuanced development of alchemical practice and how, unlike astrology, alchemy did change over time and led directly into the science of chemistry before being abandoned altogether.