[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 103 KB, 544x536, EMB46.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2360866 No.2360866 [Reply] [Original]

Alchemy was a spiritual discipline.
Stop calling it proto-chemistry. Such reductive remarks do violence to history.

>> No.2361291

So you're trying to rewrite history because you don't like it.

>> No.2361295

>>2361291
This. Denying that alchemy was the beginning of chemistry is silly.

My question is: What is strong AI research the beginning of?

>> No.2361296

>>2361291

What do you mean?

>> No.2361298

>implying we heven't preformed alchemy

>> No.2361300

>>2361296
I think he's saying that OP is deluding himself about the history of chemistry.

>> No.2361301

>>2361295

>Denying that alchemy was the beginning of chemistry is silly.
I never said it wasn't the beginning of chemistry.
It was much more than that though. The alchemists would have never thought of themselves as mere manipulators of natural substances.

>> No.2361304

>>2361300

>deluding himself about the history of chemistry
We are dealing with the history of alchemy, not the history of chemistry. Your words are very revealing by the way.

>> No.2361307
File: 35 KB, 400x320, skynet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2361307

>>2361295

Me.

>> No.2361308

>>2361301
And strong AI researchers think that intelligence is a matter of writing a few lines of code. What's your point? They were both badly misguided efforts. But alchemy lead to chemistry, and AI research is going to give us something useful soon.

Also, we CAN turn lead into gold now, via neutron bombardment with subsequent radioactive decay. It's just not worth it, and never was. Same with strong AI.

>> No.2361310

cute pic op

>> No.2361313

>>2361304
Revealing what? Don't pretend some smug high-ground here.

Alchemy was badly misguided and mystical in many ways. But it WAS proto-chemistry.

>> No.2361318

We should strive to understand how the alchemists understood themselves. We cannot even begin to understand alchemy until we gain some semblance of an 'insider's perspective'. Am I being foolish? Does this not make sense?

>> No.2361323

>>2360866
By that logic, shamanistic herbalism wasn't at the root of medicine and shouldn't be labeled as such. I'd strongly disagree with that assertion, and I disagree with the one you made in the OP. It's not a scientifically sound system but it was still an avenue through which insight about chemistry was gained.

>> No.2361327

Even if it wasn't for the right reasons, they still discovered a bunch of useful things. Hydrochloric, sulfuric and nitric acid, for one. They also contributed to metalworking and distillation, not to mention chemistry equipment like mortar and pestle.

>> No.2361325

>>2361313

>But it WAS proto-chemistry.
Sure, but it wasn't ONLY proto-chemistry.
Read the posts above.

>> No.2361328

>>2361318
I'm not too interested in their points of view, as they were far more wrong than other points of view (which merit further study in science). If you want a historical or psychological perspective, then hey, have fun.

But you might as well study the mindset of modern astrologers.

>> No.2361334

>>2361325
Again, what's your point?

>> No.2361338

It's interesting to note that my college chemistry building has alchemical symbols on the doorways.

>> No.2361343

concerning procedures, equipment and the identification and use of many current substances, alchemy is a proto-science.

ignorance is no excuse

>> No.2361349

>>2361334

Those who would ignore all other aspects of the alchemical sciences are ignoring that which is most important. As such, they cannot claim to know what alchemy is.

>> No.2361354

>>2361334
I think his point is supposed to be that alchemy covered multiple areas of study and labeling it as an infantile form of one of those areas (chemistry) isn't accurately representing it.

I disagree entirely, but that's the message I'm getting.

>> No.2361367

>>2361354

>alchemy covered multiple areas of study and labeling it as an infantile form of one of those areas (chemistry) isn't accurately representing it
Yeah, that's pretty much it.

>> No.2361372

>>2361349

I think you're completely missing the point. No one's arguing alchemy is scientifically valid. That's why it's proto-cyhemistry, it, wasn't science, it was partially mysticism, but chemistry owes a lot still to the people who pioneered in that field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sceptical_Chymist
This is by Boyle, and probably the first real chemistry book ever written, but it probably wouldn't be possible without alchemy.

>> No.2361381

>>2360866
The goals of alchemy are irrelevant to the study. Just because physicists work on the notion of time travel doesn't mean physics is also a spiritual discipline focusing partly on time travel. The hopes of a field of study shouldn't be considered in the labeling of the field with regards to a historical view of the development of science as we know it. Not dwelling on the goals isn't reductionism.

>> No.2361389

>>2361372

>No one's arguing alchemy is scientifically valid.
I know that. I used the word science to mean an organized body of knowledge.

>> No.2361409

>>2361381
>with regards to a historical view of the development of science as we know it

We aren't just dealing with the history of science though.

Pretending that alchemy was a proto-science and only proto-science is a distortion. Historians of science are more than welcome to focus on this area of alchemy, but it is when they claim (often implicitly) that this is all there is that I become unhappy.

>> No.2361418

>>2361409
I haven't ever seen anyone assert that it was JUST proto science, but it was proto science. If you want to talk about religious aspects of it look at a theological study of history. It's not the job of people talking about it in a scientific context to mention spiritual components.

>> No.2361435

>>2361418

Often, those who speak of it in a scientific context imply that alchemy was nothing more than proto-science. This gives people the wrong idea.

>> No.2361440

>>2360866
WTF were alchemist thinking in pic related?