Reading Guide - Week 1

According to these articles, how has understanding of alchemy and its place in the history of science changed in recent years?

Recent historians now see alchemy as a serious, proto-scientific practice—not just mysticism or pseudoscience. Scholars like Principe, Newman, and Martinón-Torres highlight alchemists’ use of empirical methods, experimentation, and observation, showing they contributed to the foundations of modern science.

How did historians of science view alchemy before?

Before:

• Alchemy was seen as a failed science or even a hoax.

• It was lumped in with magic and superstition, not taken seriously by mainstream historians.

• Figures like Newton and Boyle kept their alchemical work hidden to avoid professional damage.

How do historians view alchemy now?

Now:

• Alchemy is recognized as a precursor to chemistry, part of a longer, messier development of science.

• Alchemists are viewed as empirical experimenters working with the best tools available.

Why have historians of science studying the period before the eighteenth century revived the old term, “chymistry” to describe the material they study?

Historians now prefer “chymistry” to “alchemy” to:

• Avoid modern biases: The word alchemy carries pejorative and mystical connotations. “Chymistry” was used by early modern practitioners themselves and lacks that baggage.

• Reflect historical accuracy: "Chymistry" captures the overlapping practices of early chemistry, alchemy, pharmacy, and materials science before the Enlightenment split them into separate fields.

• Unify theory and practice: “Chymistry” emphasizes that these practitioners combined theoretical reflection with hands-on lab work—just as modern scientists do.

How did historians of science arrive at the new understanding of alchemy—what methods of investigation have they used?

• Experimental Reconstruction: Recreating historical experiments with original materials (Principe, Newman).

• Philological Analysis: Decoding manuscripts, symbols, and allegories to uncover hidden scientific knowledge.

• Archaeological Investigation: Excavating labs and analyzing artifacts (Martinón-Torres) using modern tools like x-ray diffraction.

• Archival Research: Unearthing lost texts in archives (e.g., Principe finding Homberg’s manuscript).

What kinds of evidence do they have that makes them think the old view of alchemy was wrong and the new one is correct?

• Material analysis shows chymists used advanced materials (e.g., Hessian crucibles with mullite).

• Experimental reproducibility of old recipes supports their empirical rigor.

• Manuscripts and lab notes show detailed, systematic observation.

• Scientific continuity: Ideas like atomic theory can be traced back to chymists like Daniel Sennert in the early 17th century.

How would you compare the methods of the alchemists to those of modern scientists?

• Similarities: Both used observation, experimentation, and detailed record-keeping. Alchemists often worked iteratively, refining their techniques like modern scientists.

• Differences: Alchemists operated within mystical and symbolic worldviews, seeking spiritual as well as material transformation. Modern science relies on empirical validation, falsifiability, and standardized methods.

What differences allow us to identify the text by Martinón-Torres as a scholarly article and the one by Reardon as journalism?

• Martinón-Torres (scholarly):

  • Uses technical language and in-depth analysis

  • Cites sources and includes references

  • Aimed at academic audiences

  • Focuses on original research or interpretation

• Reardon (journalism):

  • Written in accessible language

  • Aimed at a general audience

  • Focuses on recent findings or news

  • Based on interviews and summaries of others' work, not original research

How do historians and scientists differ in their methods of producing knowledge?

• Historians (e.g., of science) reconstruct and interpret past events using documents, artifacts, and sometimes experiment reenactment. Their work is interpretive, focused on context and meaning.

• Scientists seek general laws about nature through experiments, models, and reproducible methods. Their work is predictive and empirical.

How did alchemists bridge history and science?

Alchemists used careful experimentation and observation like scientists, but within symbolic and spiritual frameworks. Their methods were empirical, but their goals included both material change and philosophical insight.