Where the alchemists successful in their experiment???

Atleast did they find anything new???

did they find anything new???

 

yup, I think you`ll find Phosphorus a shinning example of such discovery.

 

 

 

pun intended

Percy made a nugget of purest green!

Edited August 22, 200817 yr by DrP

They invented the Darwin awards.

Newton among other things was an alchemists....

Well, I think it's rather difficult to distinguish between an early chemist and an alchemist, but here's a page about some famous alchemists, Newton amongst them as Klaynos said.

 

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects2002/crabb/famous.html

One of my chemistry books referred to john dalton being an alchemist, but I can't seem to find any supporting evidence online

to frosch45

Originally posted by frosch45

One of my chemistry books referred to john dalton being an alchemist, but I can't seem to find any supporting evidence online

 

Maybe he was born to an alchemist

Alchemy was observation and empirical science. They developed that approach. They would run valid experiments and generate good data for chemical reactions and phase changes. But their explanations were off with respect to what we now know is the basis of chemistry. For example, they knew if you mix gold and mercury it would form an amalgam. This is good experimental and observation data. However, they would explain this or correlate it, with a mystical analysis.

 

They invented and understood the basics of distillation and could make fairly pure products. But being empirical they would explain this with spirits, from which the terms is coined for distilled alcohol, which they invented. Their mystical approach could be used to predict a range of chemical reactions and chemical changes of state. They demonstrated that empirical models don't have to be real to correlate fairly well. This is why the age of enlightenment stressed logic much more than empirical. The astrologers could also predict eclipses and had a functional model that was not real but empirical. Logic shifted science away from the empirical approach since any premises could be made work.

 

The alchemists did show one can do good procedure, collect good data and extrapolate logic from false assumptions and still get a functional set of empirical principles that could make predictions. They didn't have statistics to fudge results. This would have allowed them to extend their correlations even further. Lead into gold is now within the realm of probability using principles of uncertainty and chaos. They could have used that to pull victory out of the jaws of defeat. Luckily for logic, they didn't have these extra tools, although this was sort of built into their mystical assumptions since spirits are more chaotic and not subject to the laws of cause-affect.