Former featured articleAlchemy is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 1, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
November 12, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
November 28, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
July 14, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

RFC: Should Alchemy be included in Category:Pseudoscience[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a clear consensus among participants that the Category:Pseudoscience should not be present in this article in its current state. The discussion about the category's removal focused on two main points: is "pseudoscience" used as a descriptor by academics; is there a following big enough to justify calling it a pseudoscience (and is that information present on the article). On the first point, editors said that, while there is some coverage of alchemy in pseudoscience texts, current experts avoid that term as it can be seen as anachronistic. Concerning the second point, it was noted that the article does not contain enough information on alchemy in modern times to justify the category, but it might be reinserted in the event that content on the subject is added (though it is recommended this is discussed on the talk page). (non-admin closure) Isabelle 🔔 17:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Up until December 8th, Alchemy was included in the category Category:Pseudoscience. Should it be restored? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote[edit]

I think there are better sources than Campbell out there. jps (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The work of Paracelsus and Newton show that, far from being some strange, foreign practice performed by cranks in the dark corners of society, alchemy, in a broad sense, was part of mainstream intellectual thought. It is persuasively argued by historians that alchemical research helped pave the way for later understandings of the universe and was a pivotal intellectual part of the Scientific Revolution, which supposedly did away with superstitious belief for a society based upon reason alone. All of early chemistry took its working methodologies and underlying assumptions directly from alchemy. [...] Once dismissed by scientists and historians alike as nothing more than a mildly interesting pseudoscience indulged in by persons of dubious integrity, the modern reappraisal of alchemy, and its resurrection as a worthwhile topic of historical study, came in the late 1970s with the publication of Belgian historian of science Robert Halleux Les Textes Alchemiques. He saw the work of some alchemists as organized and experimental and thus forming the basis of modern experimental science. This opened up alchemy as a topic serious scholars could and should investigate. It was this growing body of literature that helped overturn so many of the fantastical and preconceived notions about alchemy. [...] The traditional view is that alchemy was a strange, irrational fringe pursuit and that chemistry, as a logical practice, evolved out of it almost accidentally. This view has been repudiated by the scholarship of Lawrence Principe and William Newman. Their close reading and analysis of original texts and primary sources shows that there was no differentiation between alchemy and chemistry to the practitioners of the field prior to about 1700.

Regal rightfully cites the most foremost contemporary experts on alchemy, William R. Newman and Lawrence M. Principe. But what do these experts themselves say? I'll repeat the quotes I gave above:

[...] 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.

Principe and Newman themselves are in fact quite explicit that projecting the modern concept of pseudoscience on historical alchemy is badly mistaken, highly anachronistic, dated, and results from strategic and polemical reasons and a lack of historical understanding. So on the one hand there's the traditional conception of alchemy as a pseudoscience, still popular among the general public, but on the other hand this traditional conception is rejected by the expert scholars of the last 20–30 years. This makes it a difficult call. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And to that I reply

Principe, looking at the history of alchemy in hindsight, doesn't seem to realize that alchemy was ridiculed so much because people of the time were a lot closer to it than he is, and they knew it a lot better than he does today. He thinks the ridicule caused alchemy to lose favor, as if it were part of some Illuminatus conspiracy all its own, when instead it lost favor because the few serious people that did it got nowhere and everyone else was just goofy and making all of chemistry look bad just when chemistry showed promise to be meaningful. That reasoning would be like declaring hundreds of years from now that homeopathy fell out of favor because it was ridiculed, rather than falling out of favor because it was ridiculous. Yet homeopaths claim instances where it worked and Principe falls into the trap of saying alchemy was more legitimate than its perception because some substances were invented by alchemists. It's not the same thing as being science. There's nothing wrong with turning out to be pseudoscience - like Newton, you can try to legitimize alchemy but when the evidence isn't there, it becomes zealotry instead.

And there's nothing wrong with pseudoscience having a place in the history of science, but seeking to revise history so that alchemy was not pseudoscience at all, because early proponents did what they could with the chemistry they had, knocks out every definition of science. There is no junk or pseudoscience that can't have a similar rehabilitation the same way.

Campbell, Henry, "Is Alchemy Back In Fashion?". science20.com. 27 August 2014.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the criticism of one of the foremost academic experts on alchemy by the self-described "award-winning science writer and bestselling author Hank Campbell" (deleted WP page; AfD), who clearly is as ignorant as they come about this subject, is all but irrelevant. See WP:GEVAL. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we cannot manage to write an article/section about the pseudoscientific version of alchemy that is up to our standards, WP:ASTONISH, I would argue, would have us not categorize the article as such. It does the reader no good to see a category and be unable to find why the article is so categorized. jps (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another article is probably not necessary although a few existing ones likely have mentions of alchemical concepts. The current article includes (unsourced): "The courses, books, organizations, and conferences generated by their students continue to influence popular applications of alchemy as a New Age medicinal practice." which could be clarified with a source, including a mention of modern pseudoscientific use (independently of the category)... —PaleoNeonate – 02:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PaleoNeonate: yes, you're right of course. That section desperately needs a reliable source, as well as a clarification that in the modern context spagyrics is considered pseudoscience. An alternative may be to remove the section for the time being. I'm not sure how notable it is, and I'm kind of disappointed that Edzard Ernst 2019, Alternative Medicine: A Critical Assessment of 150 Modalities doesn't mention it. Let's just not go overboard in citing skepticist criticism of it if that's the only kind of source we find. Only writing about something to discredit it, while acceptable in some cases, easily veers off into unencyclopedic (WP:NOTADVOCACY) territory, and should be avoided as much as possible in my view. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there's any issue with "discrediting" any modern usage, though and stating the obvious isn't necessarily advocacy territory, especially considering WP:PSCI and that reliably published sources exist... —PaleoNeonate – 13:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no issue at all with discrediting, or stating the obvious, as such. I explicitly said we should call modern spagyrics a pseudoscience if the section on it is to remain. The issue (only potential here) is rather with discrediting for the sake of discrediting, which would belong on Skeptopedia, but not on Wikipedia. If the only reliable sources that exist are written with the explicit and sole purpose of debunking or discrediting a subject, that is a strong indication in my view that the subject is not notable from a properly encyclopedic point of view (as may be the case for modern spagyrics). At least one or two reliable sources that approach the subject from an academic perspective (historical, sociological, philosophical, psychological, ... again, the most relevant field would be Western esotericism studies) are needed to get a broader view, one that goes beyond simply advocating against something. I'm aware that our guidelines are not adjusted to this, and that in many places Wikipedia actually functions as a kind of Skeptopedia. Now in some ways I actually like this Skeptopedia type of approach (there's a huge societal relevance to this), but I also do think that it should be its own project, and that it does not in fact belong here (we should rather be able to link to it, as in Wikipedia does not cover this subject, but a related article exists on Skeptopedia, or For more on this subject, see the article on Skeptopedia). These are my thoughts, but please feel free to disagree; I probably hold a minority view here, and I do respect other views on this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed the brief mentions of spagyrics and TCM, as they are modern adaptations and were never part of alchemy proper. I see that spagyrics comprise most of the article on Paracelsianism. Perhaps the article should be re-titled "Spagyrics" with sections on Paracelsian and Modern uses. Alchemy and "plant alchemy" are really two different topics. We can put the pseudoscience category on that article. Skyerise (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may be of interest to know that there used to be a separate page called Spagyric, which was merged with Paracelsianism on 5 July 2020‎. Also important to note is that spagyria primarily refers to the 16th-/17th-century iatrochemical practice, and as such does in fact deserve a place in this article. As for the section on 20th-century 'revival' spagyrics which was copied to Paracelsianism, I fear that the problem has merely been moved to that article. It still needs reliable sourcing, as well as a citation for the fact that it is a pseudoscience. I have already added Category:Pseudoscience to the article though. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not modern spagyrics is a pseudoscience is debatable. It depends on the exact definition. To the extent 'spagyrics' refers to the process and even the resulting product, it consists of perfectly scientific chemical extraction techniques. That is, the process uses recognizable chemical extraction methods and produces a perfectly real and analyzable extract. Does the term 'spagyrics' also include the diagnosis and prescription for illness? That's not clear to me, and if it doesn't, then there is no pseudoscience involved, just archaic terminology. The only part which might be considered pseudoscience is the medical part, which is why either 'plant alchemy' (used since the early 20th century) or 'herbal alchemy' (used since c. 1960) would probably be better titles than 'spagryics'. 'Herbal alchemy' is the most common designation. In any case, if herbal extracts in and of themselves are 'pseudoscience', then so is vanilla extract. Skyerise (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I would expect to find alchemy in the pseudoscience category, if I was browsing that category. If it is or is not pseudoscience is almost another question. It can probably be described as a fragmented religion, especially considering how the term is used by modern magical organizations. In the past, they probably really did try obtain transmutation via chemistry, a proto-science. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Astrology is also an important part of the history of science. It doesn't make it any less pseudoscientific. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, —PaleoNeonate – 21:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And while it's also much less prevalent than astrology, by modern standards, it doesn't mean it's extinct. See this list amongst other things. I mean, just read this nonsense by French alchemist Jean Dubuis (ASIN B07RG71R7W. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not nonsense, but not alchemy as generally understood. That's herbal alchemy, and "vegetable mercury" is a real thing in mid-17th-century medicine. Skyerise (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Then we should make the distinction between prescientific alchemy, which was definitely protoscience, and ... whatever that just was. Similarly prescientific astrology and modern astrology. -- The Anome (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's close to "purified mercury" (this one is not about isolation). —PaleoNeonate – 21:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forget astrology. PaleoNeonate's comparison of alchemy above with humorism, and medieval medicine generally, is much better: alchemy was very closely related to medicine on a theoretical level (see, e.g., here). Take, for example, Unani medicine: no one would think about calling Hippocrates' and Galen's medicine pseudoscience, but people who still cling to this in the 20th century are obviously practicing pseudoscience. The important difference is that medieval chemistry (alchemy), in contradistinction to medieval medicine, had a huge influence on modern occultism and esotericism. Thus we find figures like Samael Aun Weor referring to alchemical concepts. But another difference is that, while adherents of Unani medicine are still practicing a form of medicine that is almost identical to medieval medicine, Weor's imaginings have little or nothing to do with actual medieval alchemy. In that sense, it's rather questionable to represent figures like Weor as 'alchemists'. The same is true about the 'alchemists' we list here. There are not many good reliable sources on 20th-century 'alchemy', but it is a very complex subject indeed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's right: "modern" alchemy, astrology etc. are all esoteric movements that are based on the concept that the prescientific ideas are somehow ancient wisdom that is "more true" than real science; and then they take those and build their own ideas on top. -- The Anome (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alchemy Museums - the Alchemist's cave in Prague[edit]

I wrote about Alchemy in Prague, since Prague was a hub for massive scientific and artistic developments. I focused on the Alchemist’s Cave found after a flood, which was turned into a museum by a person who bought the place (so it was privatized). Some things to be thought about include how the cave connects to public history (If a person is in charge of curating the material) and is the cave is a memorial for alchemy. How is the interactivity of the cave/museum recreated as the original objects/interactivity (the doors opening the same as the original ones) part of a historical genre? How is talking about alchemy as a cool thing and mentioning only male alchemists create a historical power, vs how much of it is saving that past without adding presentism to it?Ushtima (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were removed, as they were a word-for-word copy-paste violation WP:COPYVIO from Google Translate of an article in the Spanish language National Geographic magazine. Not cool. BTW, I have been to the Speculum Alchemae/Alchemist's Cave/Museum of Alchemy in Prague, and although it is very interesting to see the historical artifacts, it is primarily a tourist attraction selling "elixirs", and I'm not sure it belongs in this article unless it is rewritten without copyright violations and backed up with reliable, verifiable independent sources WP:RS. Netherzone (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WildRhombus, Patissiereyumeiro (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SunnYxXxxx.

— Assignment last updated by Patt0400 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! I for, for one, look forward to your contributions, but should a change you make be reverted, please don't be offended, just come here and make your case. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle and alchemy[edit]

Hi Iley1228! Thanks for your contribution to this article. Unfortunately, I have needed to revert it, since there are several problems with it:

  1. Scholars generally agree that (western) alchemy originated in the late Hellenistic period, with the writings attributed to Democritus (pseudo-Democritus, dated to circa 54–68 CE) being the earliest surviving texts. Although earlier (Greek) natural philosophy did influence alchemy, it's misleading to speak about it as if it were part of alchemy's own history. The discussion of early Greek natural philosophy therefore does not belong in the Byzantium section, but in a separate section on pre-alchemical ideas on material constitution and change (theories of matter).
  2. The source you used, Hopkins 1934, is seriously dated (see WP:AGE MATTERS). One consequence of this is that Hopkins' claim (pp. 25–27) that Aristotle's theory of growth formed the basis for alchemical theories of transmutation needs some qualification. Among Aristotle's four causes, the final cause (and more generally the concept of entelechy or the natural tendency to a formal state of 'perfection') is still considered an important part of most alchemical theories (see, e.g., Newman 2004), but it is now generally recognized that alchemical theory of matter was fundamentally opposed to Aristotelian hylomorphism and adopted instead a theory of the corpuscularian kind (Newman 2006, pp. 13, 224–225 et passim). This corpuscularian theory in turn did have roots in Meteorology IV, which despite the fact that it was probably written by Aristotle did not take a hylomorphistic approach (see Newman 2001; Viano 2002; Viano 2006). Thus, the interplay of matter and form in Aristotle's theory of growth has been amply shown to be absent from –and indeed antithetical to– alchemical theories. Instead it is now recognized that alchemy drew upon the corporealist/materialist approaches of Hellenistic philosophies like Stoicism (see Gourinat 2005 [updated English translation in Gourinat 2009]; Dufault 2015; Rinotas 2017; Rinotas 2021).
  3. In general, it's probably a bad idea to write a single short paragraph only covering Plato and Aristotle. As you can see from the above this is a rather complex subject, which means that it needs a lot of context for the reader to understand. Even if Hopkins 1934's claim about the influence of Aristotle's theory of growth would still hold up today, and if we were to write something about it in our article, we would need to explain what that theory of growth was and how precisely alchemists made use of it. What you wrote, his 4 steps to growth were used by future philosophers as a way to achieve alchemy, is incomprehensible for an average reader without context.
  4. When citing sources that have page numbers for claims made in wiki-voice (i.e., in articles), always be sure to include them in your citation.

One more tip: since alchemy in general is a difficult subject, it's probably best not to dive into the specialist sources I cited above. Instead, try some newer introductory coursebooks on the subject (similar to Hopkins 1934 but much more recent and up to date), such as Principe 2013 or Joly 2013. Especially Principe 2013 is a joyful read, and I'm sure you'll find something interesting in it to add to this article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues and classification[edit]

Reassess article to C-class, fails the B-class criteria. The "Further reading" section is the worse I have seen with 37 entries. This section is optional and I read that only 3% of Wikipedia articles have this. I am going to leave this ATM but will revisit it. Lacking any discussion on trimming (with a bush hog) I will cut the bottom half off. Also, as maintenance, I will cut all but the top three in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
Reply: Some people like order and some people thrive in chaos. There are several areas I excel but concerning wallpaper, I expect I am among the approximately 5 billion unique global "ignorant" visitors to Wikipedia a year. I sometimes reflect on the fact that academia would likely not have an audience were it not for those less learned, ignorant if you will, of certain information yet desiring to know more. Socrates wrote extensively concerning intelligence and ignorance. "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." As far as the article, if I see I can make improvements, I will try. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody likes to think that they're ignorant. This doesn't mean that there are no ignorant people, nor that they will not cobble up bad articles when given the chance. I'm not saying that you are ignorant, nor that anyone could or even should keep ignorant people from writing bad Wikipedia articles. God knows that there are many such people, many such articles. All I'm saying is that if one realizes one is ignorant about something, one may find it worth considering leaving the Wikipedia article about that thing alone. It's what Socrates would do. On the other hand of course, academics should less be playing Socrates, and just write Wikipedia articles. But I suspect we agree on that one. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
---Thanks. Otr500 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories