Philosophy of science ques: To what extent was Alchemy scientific?

Question

Stuff like - did it follow the scientific method or the hypothetico-deductive method?

Not off Wikipedia please.

Answer 1

Well, look at it this way.

Alchemy = Chemistry in the way that Astrology = Astronomy.

Alchemy attempts to resolve the secrets of the Universe and so in that sense it is scientific, although the information and theories it was based upon were reflections of the time. There was therefore little 'scientific method' although decisions were based on observation of the natural world.

For example, the 'doctrine of signatures' linked the physical appearance of things to their purpose, particularly medical. While we now know there is no 'scientific' basis for this, occasionally things did work in practice and then the disciplines of proper recording and observation came into their forte.

As well as medicine, alchemy also 'incorporated' physics, chemistry, metallurgy. So it could be said that without alchemy, modern medicine and science would not have progressed as it did.

Alchemy was of course also a philosophical discipline in that, as well as creating the philosopher's stone, the intellectual rigours of it's gradual creation is intended to also (and more importantly) purify (bring enlightenment) upon it's maker. This aspect now continues outside the scientific realm in various arcane and occult practices.

To see just how much alchemy influenced science, follow this link about Isaac Newton!

Hope that helps!

.

Answer 2

Interesting question. You have probably answered your own question though because it would rely on the individual practitioner.

You have to remember that alchemy was science before scientific method (ie. hypothesis - experiment - model - criticism by peer review) was developed. Science itself is by no mean monolithic. The best example of this I can think of is Sir Issac Newton. The developer of calculus, the most respected physicist in four hundred years for his laws of motion but also a religious nutter who practised alchemy. His life pretty well summed up science before scientific method.

Answer 3

They both contain the systematic search for for actuality and inspire a rigorous form of wondering about the international. and they percentage a worry-free beginning; quite of having philosophers and scientists, we used to have in many cases "philosophers" who were a blend of both (like, say, Aritstotle). yet philosophy and technological know-how immediately are patently separate disciplines. technological know-how is in accordance to actual experimentation; if there is no longer an try in touch, then what you've in all likelihood isn't technological know-how. there is a few gray area about such issues as astronomy, and different fields the position rigorous kinds of commentary are used quite of experimentation, yet for the most area, technological know-how is a self-discipline defined through the technique of inductively reasoning from experimental files. Philosophy isn't. in case you throw arithmetic into the lot, this turns into nonetheless more desirable complicated. various of substantial math has been achieved through philosophers; seem at Leibniz, to illustrate. interior the stunning century, philosophers (like Wittgenstein) in truth created formal common sense as we now recognize it. Bertrand Russel worked on set concept. it will be stated, besides, that arithmetic isn't an experimental self-discipline (except for the evidently stunning case of knowledge through exhaustion). Linguistics, too, has substantial overlap with some kinds of analytic philosophy. and also to arithmetic -- computational linguistics is a fascinating (if arbitrary and confounding) field. Psychology and philosophy have also traditionally overlapped -- Freud, Jung, and Lacan, all psychologists, are a lot more desirable substantial to serious theorists than they're to psychologists. With the introduction of behavioral psychology, it is a more desirable explicitly scientifically self-discipline, psychology and philosophy are drifting aside again. At any fee, i have lengthy gone on lengthy sufficient. Suffice it to assert that philosophy is an noticeably vast field which informs and is counseled through any kind of different fields. after we received't or don't have inductively-derived files in any field, philosophy is typically what fills the hollow. Are the mind and the tips the same component? Ask a logician, no longer a neuroscientist, because there is not any try that would inform you the reply. All we may be able to do is imagine very obviously and rationally about the question -- and that is what philosophers are there for. it is no longer technological know-how, yet that would not propose it is no longer useful.

Answer 4

As I understand it alchemical experiments were designed to be repeatable - ie they were looking for a method that *worked* and could be used again and again. They had a hypothesis - that lead could be transmuted to create gold by following certain steps. Therefore it was scientific.
We are pretty sure now that what they were attempting was *wrong*, but that doesn't mean it wasn't scientific - cf Newtonian physics being superceded by Einstein, being superceded by quantum physics? And funnily enough, quantum physics has brought us back to believing that what is going on inside the experimenter - their expectations/preconceptions - affects the results. Just as the alchemists did.

Answer 5

From what I can understand, it was a crude form of chemistry when it first began. They did not necessarily utilize the modern form of scientific method nor did they have the same ethical constraints we do today. I don't think it was a hypothesis based exploration but rather an inquisitive search for whatever could be discovered and used to enhance existence.

Answer 6

It's hard to answer..one of the most reported alchemy exercise was turning lead into gold (never successful). Of course science was less advanced, and it was thought to be doable since, according to the scientists of the time, everything was made of fire, air, water, earth and one other which i can't remember.

So it had a scientific ground, in the science of the day, but In large it was hypothetical.

Answer 7

it followed the scientific method of the time, which was far more philosophico-magico-religiously based, from my studies. an important thought might be to distinguish between external and internal alchemy based on the taoist model, the former dealt with chemicals, tinctures, etc. the latter with meditative means for enhancing health and spiritual growth. taoist internal alchemy is surely a worthy practice. this might be helpful http://www.kheper.net/topics/Taoism/index.html

Answer 8

I dont really know..i dont even know the extent of alchemy. But if it includes turning simple metal into gold, i guess it kind of enhance science by showing that..its possible to shapes the properties of a substance, into something completely different...

Answer 9

What I understand of alchemy is that it attempted to create through "magic" which was actually a primitive form of chemistry.

There was a great deal of science to it, but I don't think the practitioners were aware of it.

Kind of like "we know aspirin works, we just don't know WHY it works."