The Abandonment Of Alchemy

933 Words2 Pages

In the following paper, an examination will be made of an imperative point in alchemical and chemical history, that being the abandonment of alchemy. Often when questioning the implementation of this decisive transformation, there is a conventional approach that sides with the idea of logic deriving from chemistry and not alchemy. The public often forgets about the advancements made in alchemy due to the forced shadow chemistry casts upon it. In light of events that took place between 1660 and 1770, an investigation will be made into the historical contents of that time. This can be accomplished by utilizing sources published from the University of Cambridge as well as sources analyzing events in which academic institutions publicly undermined …show more content…

What if alchemy was accepted in academic curriculums and not cast away due to a lack of understanding? Would intellects from scientific history have attached themselves to alchemy oppose to chemistry? If individuals of the time in fact knew that Isaac Newton had an obsession with alchemy, would that have altered the public’s perception? Essentially, the general analysis of these two articles is to understand that alchemy was not cast away due to a yearning for logic, instead due to jealousy and improper perception. It was the politics of the time that altered the course of alchemy’s direction. Consequently, this inspired newly educated chemists and post-alchemists to discredit alchemical findings to improve their scientific reputation. An event that lead to Lavoisier’s doings in 1778 when he discredited phlogiston. In an article published by The Yale University Press titled “Antoine Lavoiser and the Myth of Phlogiston” we see that phlogiston was not that far off from Lavoisier’s findings in 1778 and sparked a debate between Antoine Lavoisier and Joseph Priestly between 1770 and 1780. Priestly was a supporter of Phlogiston. He thought that phlogiston was what burnt and was absorbed into the air. Instead of the current understanding that fire feeds off oxygen in air until it runs out, Phlogiston theory was that air absorbs phlogiston from fire until it starves and burns out. Basically, the phlogiston theory was heading in the proper direction, but lacked concrete detail. An example of a lack of concrete detail is Newton’s theory of gravity, a term that was coined in the 1620s. The concept of gravity is understood quite differently today. Another example is Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Our current idea of the theory is different to the original, but the name “Evolution” was kept to seem as though Darwin was right. Phlogiston was abandoned and Lavoisier was overly awarded as there was

Open Document