Greg+Silva+-+Week+4

Given the arguments in favor and opposed to alchemy, at least during the twelfth through fourteenth centuries, the proponents of alchemy supported their views with scientific thinking and experimental data, while opponents of alchemy and transmutation argue, as described by the Persian philosopher Avicenna, that “artificial and natural products are intrinsically different, for art is inherently inferior to nature and cannot hope to equal it” and that “the true species-determining characteristics of metals cannot be known, since they subsist beneath the level of sense. Since these specifics are unknown, it will be impossible to bring about the transmutation of one metal into another, for the alchemist cannot manipulate what he does not know” (Newman). Alchemic theory, while completely implausible with modern chemical knowledge, was observational, and therefore scientific in nature, while counterarguments against alchemic theory, while correct given modern chemical knowledge, discredited alchemy on the premise that “art is inherently inferior to nature” (Newman) and that the intrinsic differences between metals can’t be determined by the senses. This argument is based on assumption and the latter can be countered by historic example.

Alchemists, upon observing that metals - when “’calcined’ – oxidized by intense heating - …give off a sulfurous, stinking smoke” (Newman) and upon observing that “mercury readily forms an amalgam with gold, silver, copper, tin, or lead, simply by remaining in contact with any of the said metals” (Newman), concluded that all six of the known metals (mercury wasn’t considered a metal) were made out of some ratio of sulfur and mercury. Further, as a demonstration of transmutation, alchemists employed “a procedure by which mercury subjected to the vapor of molten silver or lead is congealed per se ‘without the admixture of any other’” (Newman), insisting that the hot metal vapor “’[dried] out’ the excess humidity of the mercury, thus allowing it to become a full blown metal” (Newman). Using the Aristotelian elements, alchemists attempted to explain the composition of the six known metals (copper, iron, tin, lead, silver, gold) based on the properties of sulfur and mercury, as well as on their observations of chemical reactions. While their conclusions were erroneous (sulfur is common in many minerals containing these metals, and mercury readily mixes with all but iron), they were based in observation and experiment and, therefore, scientific in nature – science can be wrong!

Avicenna’s second argument against alchemy, that alchemists can’t manipulate that which they don’t understand, can easily be countered with numerous technological breakthroughs in early human history. As an example, during the Bronze Age when advanced civilizations smelted bronze out of copper and tin and used it for tools, etc., these civilizations held no understanding about the intrinsic properties of copper or tin that made bronze such a useful material. However, an enormous collection of bronze tools, weapons, and artistic objects dating from this period exist, indicating that despite the fact that Bronze Age civilizations did not fully understand the chemical reasons behind metalworking, they successfully manipulated metals to their advantage.