Talk:Alchemy

message: *Not sure It seems unfair to lump it in with astrology, as alchemy is an important part of the history of science. Also, pseudoscience is usually something masquerading as science while at the same time being at odds with it, but alchemy simply pre-dated science, there was nothing for it to be at odds with. It gradually evolved into modern chemistry, but it was a very slow transition in places, Vitalism was still being debated 100 years ago. --Project Osprey (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Indeed, —PaleoNeonate – 21:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: That's close to "purified mercury" (this one is not about isolation).  —PaleoNeonate – 21:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Alchemy Museums - the Alchemist's cave in Prague 

message: — Assignment last updated by Patt0400 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton

message: Hi ! Thanks for your contribution to this article. Unfortunately, I have needed to revert it, since there are several problems with it:
#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).
#The source you used, , 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., ), 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 (). 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 ; ; ). 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  [updated English translation in ]; ; ; ).
#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 '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, , is incomprehensible for an average reader without context.
#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  but much more recent and up to date), such as  or . Especially  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)
thread_title:  Aristotle and alchemy 

message: :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. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: . --  Otr500 (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: ---Thanks.  Otr500 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article issues and classification