# Which principles of alchemy are still worth preserving? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 30, 2018, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340 "2018-04-30T08:35:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/1 "2018-04-30T08:35:10Z")
Hi From a modern scientific perspective, which principles of alchemy are still be worth preserving? I look forward to your feedback. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/2 "2018-04-30T08:53:58Z")
All the ones that became “chemistry”. Alchemy was mostly just rudimentary pre-scientific method chemistry with a whole bunch of astrology and philosophy tacked on in an attempt to figure out how or why things worked, and how to perform different tasks. People may find value in those other things, but as far as the practical aspects of doing predictable, useful things with the physical world is concerned, we’ve gotten along much better disregarding those pieces. (E: Well, insofar as one **can** “disregard philosophy”) ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/3 "2018-04-30T08:59:33Z")
I don’t believe that alchemy was lost. It was just discarded as the scientific method came in and made the stuff which didn’t prove out shunt off. One of the key aspects of the scientific method, which isn’t properly taught in schools, is peer review. Alchemy persisted largely because people were quietly tinkering around in their basements for centuries, probably all mostly running the same chemical tests that hundreds of other alchemists had tried with no effect. Once paper started to become readily available, and then the printing press, and they could start sharing their results, suddenly they could share results and quickly strike out all of the nonsense. Chemistry is the part of alchemy that was worth preserving. It is that which survived peer review and peer replication. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/4 "2018-04-30T09:00:53Z")
Also, nothing I said is to knock alchemy! It was legitimately the best we had, and we did make real discoveries with it. Some very well known mathematicians and physicists such as Newton were also alchemists. it’s just that later developments, and especially philosophical developments like the scientific method, re-contextualized the stuff that worked and we shed the need for the explanations once we gathered more understanding about the world around us. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/5 "2018-04-30T09:01:54Z")
> [@davidmich](#): > > Hi > > From a modern scientific perspective, which principles of alchemy are still be worth preserving? > I look forward to your feedback. Please generate a list of all of the principles of alchemy that there are, so we can make sure we don’t miss any. TIA. Also, what **Jragon** said. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/6 "2018-04-30T11:43:40Z")
Wasn’t the philosopher’s stone the main goal of alchemy? I’m confident in saying that that can be dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/7 "2018-04-30T11:46:59Z")
I’m not sure any “principles of alchemy” were worth preserving. It was based upon a philosophy wholly unlike that of modern chemistry, suffused by a sort of spiritual background that saw a progression of values in substances from “base” ones to “noble” ones. It didn’t rely on observation and experimentation, with experience correcting past errors, but sought to shoehorn what was seen into a previously-conceived philosophical network. It’s kind of hard to find anything useful or relevant in that welter of misconceptions. You may as well ask what elements of the concept of Phlogiston are still useful in our modern conception of fire. That isn’t to say that there was nothing to be retained in their experimental work or apparatus. After all, they did a lot of work with distillation, and those alchemical alembics and retorts were used in legitimate chemistry. The discovery of Phosphorus, the first chemical element found since ancient times, is ascribed to the work of alchemist Hennig Brand in 1669, who was working with “ignoble” urine from the human body in an effort to make it more “noble” and eventually create the Philosophers Stone\*. Waxy Phosphorus was the result, but not because of any effort to isolate constituents of urine. It was a fortuitous mistake. And a pretty late one in the history of alchemy – by 1669 modern chemistry was getting started. Earlier efforts in alchemy were viewed as tragically misguided or outright fraud. The Alchemist in Pieter Breughel the Elder’s woodcuts is a self-deceiver who ends up in the poorhouse. The Alchemist in Chaucer’s _Canterbury Tales_ is a fraud who deceives his sponsors with falsely created gold (actually cunningly introduced into the crucible) in order to get more money from them. With a reputation for fraud and self-deception, it’s not surprising that Chemistry tried to extricate itself from that background. \*Sorceror’s Stone, I gues, to J.K. Rowland’s American publishers ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/8 "2018-04-30T14:01:45Z")
I would say that alchemy slowly evolved into chemistry. There was a lot of observational and experimental evidence which chemistry incorporated. Chemists gave up on transmutation of course and alchemy per se disappeared. Contrast this with astrology. Of course, they made lots of useful observations that early astronomers incorporated, but astrology has persisted to this day, no matter how divorced from any reality it is. Some people still don’t get the difference though. When noted astronomer Jocelyn Bell gave a talk in Montreal some years ago, the local paper had a headline describing her as an astrologer. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/9 "2018-04-30T15:55:32Z")
Anyone have a list of said principles? ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/10 "2018-04-30T17:55:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Alchemy is several philosophical traditions spanning some four millennia and three continents. These traditions’ general penchant for cryptic and symbolic language makes it hard to trace their mutual influences and “genetic” relationships. From Wikipedia. I too think some context and narrowing down of the question is required, but just shooting from the hip, there are no principles of proto-science worth preserving that are unique to alchemy. Experimentation - not unique. Seeking new knowledge - not unique. Ordering of knowledge - not unique. There are a lot of results and methods from alchemy that have been preserved, in that they informed early chemistry, but could those be called “principles”? ---
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/11 "2018-04-30T19:12:49Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > I would say that alchemy slowly evolved into chemistry. There was a lot of observational and experimental evidence which chemistry incorporated. Chemists gave up on transmutation of course and alchemy per se disappeared. > > Contrast this with astrology. Of course, they made lots of useful observations that early astronomers incorporated, but astrology has persisted to this day, no matter how divorced from any reality it is. Some people still don’t get the difference though. When noted astronomer Jocelyn Bell gave a talk in Montreal some years ago, the local paper had a headline describing her as an astrologer. On the one hand I’m fascinated with the scientific interest in reconstructing Newton’s alchemical experiments. What useful results have been gleaned from those experiments I don’t know. I’ve read that Paracelsus concocted many medicines. How effective they were I don’'t know > **[Paracelsus, Physician and Philosopher: 500 Years Ahead of His Time | WRF](https://www.wrf.org/women-and-men-of-medicine/paracelsus-physician-and-philosopher)** > > Paracelsus (1493-1541) was a medical doctor, alchemist and philosopher who provoked controversy during his lifetime and still invokes controversy today when his name is mentioned. “In a treatise on syphilis containing the most comprehensive clinical description the period ever produced, we find that he was the first to perceive that the disease could only be contracted by contact. He was the discoverer of the mercury treatment for the disease, as well. The Germ theory was anticipated by him in his proposal that diseases were entities in themselves, rather than states of being. He gave birth to clinical diagnosis and the administration of highly specific medicines, rather than the traditional cure-all remedies of the time. He called for the humane treatment of the mentally ill (but was ignored for several centuries), seeing in them not creatures possessed by evil spirits, but ‘brothers’ ensnared in a treatable malady.” What did not sit well with me was the claim that everything is reducible to sulfur, mercury and salt. What nagged me was the claim that 1. oil, 2. liquor and 3. alkaline salt produced from sulfur, mercury and salt respectively don’t decay. Surely they degrade. I’d like an answer on that one. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/12 "2018-04-30T20:01:17Z")
I think one of the most important “principles of alchemy” is still one of our most important today: that a combination of careful thought and controlled experimentation will lead in the right direction. In other words, the idea that truth is a discoverable property and not a perpetual mystery. We may find it hard to wrap our brains around a time when “Why don’t I do an experiment to find out?” was a bold and iconoclastic thing to think. Alchemy (and science) are special because of how their adherents react to failure and confusion. Being right is easy - you just be right and that’s that. What you do when you’re wrong, and how you proceed when you don’t know what to do, shows a lot about your philosophy and your goals. Alchemists certainly had some mistaken goals and assumptions; I think we should take that fact as a warning and a lesson. As some have kept a _memento mori_ (remember you will die), a skull displayed as a reminder of where we’re all going, it might be good to keep beside it a “philosopher’s stone”, maybe fool’s gold with a Cracker Jack prize inside, as a _memento fallere_ (remember you will get it wrong). I think alchemy’s search for philosophical truth, and its idea that philosophical truth and physical truth would ultimately unite in a sort of singularity, may still drive a lot of what we do - but the impulse toward unity of all inquiry, along with the concept of one single person discovering the great singularity of [life, the universe, and everything], either has been postponed or has exploded and scattered in fragments around the world. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/13 "2018-04-30T21:44:31Z")
The fact that you can convert elements into each other? Of course the only way (I know of) that you can do this is via nuclear reactions, which nobody knew about back then. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/14 "2018-04-30T23:44:55Z")
It’s true that there was a sudden blossoming of science at the time of Galileo, Descartes and Boyle, and a turn away from alchemy; but many of the ancient alchemists and natural philosophers were familiar with Scientific Method. One of the greatest alchemists was the [8th-century Abu Mūsā Jābir ibn Hayyān](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabir_ibn_Hayyan), known in Latin as Geber. > [@](#): > > The Jabirian corpus … shows a clear recognition of the importance of experimentation, “The first essential in chemistry is that thou shouldest perform practical work and conduct experiments, for he who performs not practical work nor makes experiments will never attain to the least degree of mastery.” He is credited with the use of over twenty types of now-basic chemical laboratory equipment, such as the alembic and retort, and with the description of many now-commonplace chemical processes – such as crystallisation, various forms of alchemical “distillation”, and substances citric acid (the sour component of lemons and other unripe fruits), acetic acid (from vinegar) and tartaric acid (from wine-making residues), arsenic, antimony and bismuth, sulfur, and mercury that have become the foundation of today’s chemistry… [He] 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… > > The historian of chemistry Erick John Holmyard gives credit to Jabir for developing alchemy into an experimental science and he writes that Jabir’s importance to the history of chemistry is equal to that of Robert Boyle and Antoine Lavoisier. ---
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2018, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/15 "2018-05-02T20:07:55Z")
> [@davidmich](#): > > Hi > > From a modern scientific perspective, which principles of alchemy are still be worth preserving? > I look forward to your feedback. I’m still curious about whether oil, alcohol and alkaline salt decay.Perhaps someone can answer that question fir me. I can’t help wondering about their connection to mummifucqrion. We’re products of sulfur, mercury and salt included in the mummification process? ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2018, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/16 "2018-05-02T20:41:21Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Anyone have a list of said principles? “That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing” principles? Or [alchemical processes](http://azothalchemy.org/azoth_ritual.htm) principles? The former is probably still relevant to some religions. The latter is (badly envisioned) chemistry – I deal with Calcination and Distillation, amongst other operations, every day. > [@davidmich](#): > > I’m still curious about whether oil, alcohol and alkaline salt decay.Perhaps someone can answer that question fir me. I can’t help wondering about their connection to mummifucqrion. We’re products of sulfur, mercury and salt included in the mummification process? What do you mean by “decay”? Alcohols evaporate, denature, degrade. Oils undergo similar degradation processes – you might say that cooking oil “decays” as it goes rancid, but you’re not likely to describe the degradation of a motor oil in the same way. I don’t think I’d describe a salt as “decaying”. You seem to be thinking of [natron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natron), which was used in the mummification process, and also a popular thing for alchemists to use. I wouldn’t say sodium carbonate “decays” – it’ll sure react (with acids), which was presumably helpful in mummifying corpses, but that’s just forming a different salt (and some water), not “decaying”. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2018, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/17 "2018-05-02T21:41:10Z")
> [@Lightray](#): > > “That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing” principles? Or [alchemical processes](http://azothalchemy.org/azoth_ritual.htm) principles? The former is probably still relevant to some religions. The latter is (badly envisioned) chemistry – I deal with Calcination and Distillation, amongst other operations, every day. Maybe the OP will return to let us know. ---
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2018, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/18 "2018-05-03T07:30:04Z")
> [@Lightray](#): > > “That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing” principles? Or [alchemical processes](http://azothalchemy.org/azoth_ritual.htm) principles? The former is probably still relevant to some religions. The latter is (badly envisioned) chemistry – I deal with Calcination and Distillation, amongst other operations, every day. > What do you mean by “decay”? Alcohols evaporate, denature, degrade. Oils undergo similar degradation processes – you might say that cooking oil “decays” as it goes rancid, but you’re not likely to describe the degradation of a motor oil in the same way. I don’t think I’d describe a salt as “decaying”. > > You seem to be thinking of [natron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natron), which was used in the mummification process, and also a popular thing for alchemists to use. I wouldn’t say sodium carbonate “decays” – it’ll sure react (with acids), which was presumably helpful in mummifying corpses, but that’s just forming a different salt (and some water), not “decaying”. Thanks Lightray for putting that matter to rest. I couldn’t find any scientific rebuttal online for the spurious principle put forth by New Age alchemists/those espousing ‘operative alchemy’, that the products produced by sulfur, mercury and salt don’t decay. Thank you all. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2018, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/19 "2018-05-03T17:32:04Z")
Nothing. All knowledge is based on theoretical underpinnings, a story about the world we have in our minds to make sense of it, and to guide our future investigations. This is, in fact, the meaning of the much-abused word “paradigm”, bugbear of a billion bad business seminars. Theories form the paradigm, hypothesis are generated from theories, experiments test the hypotheses, and the experimental results shape the theories and, therefore, the paradigm. Alchemy’s paradigm is fatally flawed. Matter _isn’t_ made of the Aristotelian Elements, so interpreting experimental results as per that paradigm will lead you astray. If you ditch that paradigm, and move to one where matter is formed of molecules, atoms, and, ultimately, particles, you’re not doing alchemy anymore. Alchemy _is_ that specific paradigm, chemistry is a fundamentally different one, and you can’t have both without either contradictions or “interpreting” one of them into something it’s not, like how some people “interpret” alchemy into something purely philosophical with no connection to physically mixing reagents at all. Experimental results must be kept. The universe doesn’t care how we interpret things, so things which happened one way must always have happened that way, regardless of what we make of that event. Therefore, all science is built on experimental results generated by experiments performed to test the theories of the previous paradigm. But experimental results aren’t science, they don’t form a paradigm, and keeping a record of them doesn’t mean we have to keep accepting the previous paradigms which lead to them. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-principles-of-alchemy-are-still-worth-preserving/813340/20 "2018-05-05T17:32:04Z")
We have discovered that it’s possible to turn lead into gold, but the process is very costly and will only produce small amounts of gold. Of course ISTM that the alchemists that tried to figure out the process may also not have realized that had they succeeded all they would have accomplished is lowering the value of gold.