I do not consider alchemy a science, how about you all?

Same here.

In it's time it was.

Sure?

If it obeys the scientific method, it's a science. If it doesn't, it isn't.

What, no Rutherford?

 

m0_0m

Sure?

Just because it never got (and probably never will get) what it was looking for doesn't mean it isn't science.

 

If it obeys the scientific method, it's a science. If it doesn't, it isn't.

So nothing done before the scientific method was glabalized counts as science?

So nothing done before the scientific method was glabalized counts as science?

Logic alert!

Arg. What's wrong now?

Just because the logic of the method wasn't "well documented" or universally accepted during period X doesn't mean it was never followed.

Alchemy was a big science for its time. Now Jakiri says for it to be a science they would've had to have followed the scientific method. So either they followed the scientific method, in which case it fits under my definition of globalized, or they don't follow it, in which case I want to know why that automaticly implies it's not a science. The scientific method was a human invention and therefore there must have been a time when the rigorous rules to it were not followed. We can't call anything done during that time science?

I`de consider it a crude ASPECT of science, it was largely chemistry based, with limited ideas of why substance X mixed with substance Y created effect Z.

and so efforts were made to explain this, alot of which were mere flights of fancy but some were also remarkably spot on!

 

I`de consider Alchemy is to Science as ancient herbalism is to Medicine, and we still use some of these "Old Cures" today.

 

 

Lead into Gold however??? LOL, not without a bloody good particle acceletator

it is well documented that Newton was really into his Alchemy during his "Depressed" period

i suspect half of this board don't know what "Science" is defined as. unfortunately i seem to be in that half.

You'd think we'd have a sticky for that.

can u give me a link. i can't be arsed to look.

can u give me a link. i can't be arsed to look.

 

So what you're saying is we should look instead?

 

Oh well done sir.

here ya lazy sod: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=753

 

this is what Science ISN`T, infere from that link what you will.

 

PS: if your next question involves bog roll, ask another Mod for help!

what science isn't wont help me deduce what science is, as i will need a universal set to work with .

you`ve not read it have you?

just had a 1sec glance at it. its like saying. i have a bag. there are red (science) and green (not science) balls in it. there are 4 greens in the bag. find the number of reds??

just had a 1sec glance at it. its like saying. i have a bag. there are red (science) and green (not science) balls in it. there are 4 greens in the bag. find the number of reds??

 

(Sum total of balls) - 4.

 

However, that's a really bad analogy, as Idea' is a really simple concept.

(Sum total of balls) - 4

 

exactly, how can i work out what science is when i dont have the total sum

exactly, how can i work out what science is when i dont have the total sum

 

Hey look wow.

 

My previous post has 2 lines of text!

 

Perhaps the answer you seek is contained within?

no. to find the answer, u have to think outside the box.