Derek +Belanger+Week +4

The overall theme to the class of Cultures of the scientific revolution has been leaning towards one question. “What is Science?”, that question is the basis for what we will attempt to learn through the semester, and with that question raises another question, “what makes a scientist?” and it is that question that seems sir Isaac Newton was born to answer because taking him into consideration it is possible for anyone to practice the art of science. Questions have a tendency to snowball as you look into the past. If you ask “What is science?” and “what makes a scientist?” then look at Newton, the forefather of modern physics. Questions like “Why did Newton pursue something as foolish as alchemy?” “Did Newton really believe in his work in physics if he believed he could turn iron to gold?” Although we can really never know the true answers it is our job as mock historians of science to put our two cents into this matter. With this case of Newton there are two distinct ways we can go about looking at it, first being he was a brilliant man who happened to get wrapped up in a crazy fad, or he was a loon who got lucky. Newton is the father of physics, the apple, the tree, it all allegedly happened. We can accept that, but does this whole turning lead into gold tarnish his greatness? Surprisingly, all that quackery probably seemed pretty logical back in his time it’s not like he is running around Times Square now holding a bar of lead and trying to magically get rich. His workings on Alchemy laid the foundations, surprisingly, for our modern day chemistry. The original term was Chymistry and it “laid claim to a large group of technologies ranging from the making of pigments and dyes and the manufacture of mineral acids to the distillation of "strong waters" for drink. While often supporting themselves by making these items of commerce, however, chymical practitioners were also at the forefront of early modern pharmacology, having placed a radically new emphasis on mineral-based drugs and an equally important stress on the use of laboratory technologies such as distillation and sublimation in their production.” (Chemistry of Newton) Surprisingly this is where a lot of modern advancements have come from; Alchemy now has a bad reputation for being so farfetched because as we know, it is technically possible to change elements into each other through nuclear fusion and other very strong, very dangerous forces. I believe however the same quackery you might associate with Newton on the basis of Alchemy is on the same level that you would associate the devotion to religion and the church that both Galileo and Copernicus had. So in comparison it was the same product just with different circumstances. So in the end “what makes a scientist” and is Newton really a scientist even though he seems to be a loony alchemist who will sell you lead at the price of gold. The answer is, yes. This is because science as stated in the “what is science?” article is the quest for higher understanding in many ways, and to be able to be a true scientist you must be able to let go of what does and doesn’t seem crazy and think purely in the hypothetical. If Newton came out to be right, we wouldn’t have thought any different of the situation, but because he happened to be wrong in this instance there should be no reason why misplaced research and devotion should over throw his titles as a house hold name in science.