Talk:Alchemy

Vague lead

The lead fails to explain the origins of alchemy in 4th century Ptolemaic Egypt.70.49.181.61 (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

LGBT in alchemy

Where is LGBT in alchemy? 108.200.234.93 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead-Gold Base Transmutations? If you were thinking of specific historical figures and think they're significant to the topic, feel at liberty to add them (with references, natch). 82.42.82.82 (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Alchemy's zenith was at a time when most of the cultures that practiced it were rather homophobic (e.g. medieval Europe and the Middle East), or at least so in comparison to the modern era in their heteronormativity (e.g. China). Alchemy also tends to divide everything into cosmic opposites (be it Yin/Yang, mercury/sulfur), which were light/dark, hot/cold, wet/dry, --- and male/female -- with the belief that these opposites had to be balanced for the universe to work right. Sometimes this was explicitly sexual, though (although in the west it was largely later Victorian and modern writers who claimed that authors like Thomas Vaughn were really some sort of western Tantrists). If alchemists had commented on homosexuality, it would not have been pleasant. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemical literature

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alchemical literature is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemical literature. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Scholars do not longer view historical alchemy as 'pseudoscience'

@Headbomb: so the Britannica article on alchemy puts the word 'pseudoscience' in its subheader, only to leave out any other mention of the word throughout the article. You say Britannica is "amongst several others" in thus characterizing alchemy as pseudoscience, but the question is, are any of these 'others' more prominent and reliable than WP:BRITANNICA? I wonder if you could cite even one actual historian of alchemy characterizing alchemy as pseudoscience? Here's, on the other hand, what two of the leading experts on the topic say:

[...] Shapin's recent survey, The Scientific Revolution (1996), merely reinforces this point. Alchemy makes a brief appearance here among the “pseudosciences,” whose interaction with the “proper sciences” such as chemistry was “intensely problematic.” Shapin may be relating what he views as broad seventeenth-century categories, but if so, he is badly mistaken. In fact, the imposition of a meaningful distinction between alchemy and chemistry is highly anachronistic for most of the seventeenth century, and especially for Boyle, whose transmutational quest extended from his earliest laboratory training at the hands of the American chymist George Starkey up until his death in 1691. Shapin’s imposition of modern categories onto seventeenth-century chymistry is particularly ironic in view of his own extensively argued case for a “contextualist” history of science that would avoid the anachronistic excesses of those historians who have focused on the internal development of their subject. One might expect that Shapin’s oft-stated respect for historical context and actors’ categories would have steered him away from employing the dated yet modern distinction between “pseudoscience” and the so-called “proper sciences.” Yet a closer reading of his theoretical writings reveals a point of paramount importance that helps to explain this lapse—Shapin’s method consists largely of adding sociological explanations to the preexisting history of ideas rather than subjecting the results of intellectual history to critical analysis.

Newman, William R. (2006). Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-226-57697-8.

Alchemy now holds an important place in the history of science. Its current status contrasts with its former exile as “pseudoscience” or worse and results from several rehabilitative steps carried out by scholars who made closer, less programmatic, and more innovative studies of the documentary sources. Interestingly, alchemy’s outcast status was created in the eighteenth century and perpetuated thereafter in part for strategic and polemical reasons –and not only on account of a lack of historical understanding. Alchemy’s return to the fold of the history of science highlights important features about the development of science and our changing understanding of it.

Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Alchemy Restored". Isis. 102 (2): 305–312. doi:10.1086/660139. PMID 21874690. S2CID 23581980.

Of course not everyone agrees about everything with Newman and Principe. However, when it comes to rejecting the characterization of historical alchemy as 'pseudoscience', I know of no historian of alchemy who does not follow their lead, or who has made any counter-argument. The last 20–30 years have seen a sea-change in the whole approach of historians, where the projection of modern (often 18th-/19th-century) polemical categories on historical subjects has become thoroughly rejected.

There may be some room in the article to elaborate on 19th-/20th-century alchemy, which comes somewhat closer to being a 'pseudoscience', though the fact that the grand majority of latter-day alchemists –erroneously– insist that alchemy is either primarily or strictly spiritual also means that they do not normally claim alchemy to be 'scientific', which most adherents of pseudosciences do. In that sense, the article may deserve a place in category:pseudoscience, if significant coverage of modern alchemy as a pseudoscience is found and put to use in the article. But we are going to need better sources than Britannica for that.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd need to have a discussion of alchemy as pseudoscience drawn up from recent secondary sources - not tertiary ones - added to the article to support the category. See WP:CATV. Lacking such an addition to the article to support the category, anyone may and should remove it. Skyerise (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are perfectly acceptable, but if you want a secondary one [1] is from 2013 (or from 2002). Being protoscience and having a place in the history of science does not preclude being pseudoscience either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you and @Apaugasma: collaborate on a section describing the evolution of the opinions about whether or not it is a psuedoscience. Once that's written, we'll have a better idea which view currently predominates and whether its appropriate to add the category. In any case, putting your citations in edit summaries or on the talk page isn't sufficient. The reason for the category needs to be clearly explained and cited in the article text. Since it's disputed, it shouldn't go in the lead, probably a section titled "Protoscience or pseudoscience?" somewhere in the body of the article. Skyerise (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not an either or thing. It's a both thing. The sources support having the category. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure it is. Some sources support it, and others oppose it. In any case, until it is supported in the article text, the category has no place on the article. Skyerise (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with both of you. Above, I've cited two of the foremost experts on the topic (William R. Newman & Lawrence M. Principe), and 'balancing' their views with those of biologist and popular science author Peter Daempfle [2] or the backcover of a 1932 (not 2002!) book by the physician and amateur historian Charles J. S. Thompson [3] would be wholly and completely WP:UNDUE.

We should also most definitely not be originally researching some "Protoscience or pseudoscience?" section, but rather report on what expert scholars write about (modern) alchemy. If, and only if, they elaborate on modern alchemy's status as a 'pseudoscience', we should elaborate on it too.

The current focus on this question arises entirely of editorial concerns and POVs, rather than from a careful investigation of the scholarly literature on modern alchemy. This will always reflect poorly upon Wikipedia articles. We could leave in the category, which is harmless enough and may be helpful precisely because it is in line with common misconceptions, but please do not add any undue material to the article about this. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm entirely fine leaving the article as is. But the category should remain. There's zero reason for why it could only be included only if 'it is supported in the article text'. It already is supported by the article text anyway. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

See also The oldest known use of the English word “pseudoscience” dates from 1796, when the historian James Pettit Andrew referred to alchemy as a “fantastical pseudo-science” (Oxford English Dictionary). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Britannica is not particularly examplary especially today (and WP policies are what guide WP articles, of course). However, the article can certainly put in context the classical alchemy of its time and modern references (I'm sure some sources do). —PaleoNeonate – 19:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Should Alchemy be included in Category:Pseudoscience

Up until December 8th, Alchemy was included in the category Category:Pseudoscience. Should it be restored? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

!Vote

• Yes. Alchemy, like most ancient protosciences, is pseudoscience just as much as astrology, homeopathy, and all the others. That is has played a significant part in the history of science, or that its adherents were honest scholars at the time does not make its reliance on the classical elements, astrology, mysticism, etc... any less pseudoscientific. See [4], [5], "The paper acknowledges that not all practices of alchemy were pseudoscientific but that important contributions have been made by some of its adherents (Dobbs, 1992). The focus here, however, is on the pseudoscientific aspects of alchemy. Hence, the term alchemy in this paper denotes a pseudoscience.", as well as this criticism of Phillipe's Isis 'rehabilitation' of alchemy by Hank Campbell, and so on and so forth. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  Wrg to Hank Campbell, note that his website mentions his own deleted WP page (AfD). This self-promoting dilettante cannot be taken seriously as a critic of an expert like Principe. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think there are better sources than Campbell out there. jps (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• No as I am unsure that once real science took over it continued to be a thing. Unlike astrology, homeopathy, and all the others it is no longer practiced (as far as I know). At least in any meaningful way.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes It could be considered a prescience or protoscience but also a pseudoscience especially today. I have a limited screen at the moment and the interface for navigation and writing is not optimal, but I can immediately list some sources that cover alchemy and are about pseudoscience (these will not be proper links or citations): Pseudoscience, a critical encyclopedia (Regal), Abominable Science (Loxon, Prothero, Shermer), Philosophy of Pseudoscience—Reconsidering The Demarcation Problem (Pigliucci, Boudry)... In a way it is similar to old beliefs in medicine like humorism, that unfortunately is still believed (with variants) by some. An example that immediately comes to mind was the "sexual transmutation" of "energies" in Samael Aun Weor's writings, with a syncretic "modernized" alchemy that suggested that seminal "hydrogens" were migrating (with their isotope changing) as they were going up the metaphysical nadis (channels) to feed the subtle bodies (and by metaphor, transform the lead of the personality in the gold of the spirit)... And this is also a clue about an article that desperately needs improvements. —PaleoNeonate – 19:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, I propose we resurrect Category:Protoscience, which is a more accurate categorization. Skyerise (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  It may then suit to both categories, —PaleoNeonate – 19:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Simply because while I certainly acknowledge that alchemy is not really a living pseudoscience, it was also not simply ended and replaced by real science, but rather, the two "co-existed" as it were for a good long while. One need look no further than the person of Isaac Newton for evidence of that. It would not feel right to me to say that the author of the Principia also practiced "protoscience," though if that's the chosen terminology, I get it. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Maybe – Apparently, the oldest known use of the word pseudoscience in English was in relation to alchemy (James Pettit Andrews calling it a "fantastical pseudo-science” in the Oxford English Dictionary; see the Science and Pseudo-Science article in SEP). Also, per PaleoNeonate, it is covered by experts on pseudoscience, such as Brian Regal in Pseudoscience, a critical encyclopedia. However, it's worth quoting what Regal actually writes about alchemy (pp. 6–7):

The work of Paracelsus and Newton show that, far from being some strange, foreign practice performed by cranks in the dark corners of society, alchemy, in a broad sense, was part of mainstream intellectual thought. It is persuasively argued by historians that alchemical research helped pave the way for later understandings of the universe and was a pivotal intellectual part of the Scientific Revolution, which supposedly did away with superstitious belief for a society based upon reason alone. All of early chemistry took its working methodologies and underlying assumptions directly from alchemy. [...] Once dismissed by scientists and historians alike as nothing more than a mildly interesting pseudoscience indulged in by persons of dubious integrity, the modern reappraisal of alchemy, and its resurrection as a worthwhile topic of historical study, came in the late 1970s with the publication of Belgian historian of science Robert Halleux Les Textes Alchemiques. He saw the work of some alchemists as organized and experimental and thus forming the basis of modern experimental science. This opened up alchemy as a topic serious scholars could and should investigate. It was this growing body of literature that helped overturn so many of the fantastical and preconceived notions about alchemy. [...] The traditional view is that alchemy was a strange, irrational fringe pursuit and that chemistry, as a logical practice, evolved out of it almost accidentally. This view has been repudiated by the scholarship of Lawrence Principe and William Newman. Their close reading and analysis of original texts and primary sources shows that there was no differentiation between alchemy and chemistry to the practitioners of the field prior to about 1700.

Regal rightfully cites the most foremost contemporary experts on alchemy, William R. Newman and Lawrence M. Principe. But what do these experts themselves say? I'll repeat the quotes I gave above:

[...] Shapin's recent survey, The Scientific Revolution (1996), merely reinforces this point. Alchemy makes a brief appearance here among the “pseudosciences,” whose interaction with the “proper sciences” such as chemistry was “intensely problematic.” Shapin may be relating what he views as broad seventeenth-century categories, but if so, he is badly mistaken. In fact, the imposition of a meaningful distinction between alchemy and chemistry is highly anachronistic for most of the seventeenth century, and especially for Boyle, whose transmutational quest extended from his earliest laboratory training at the hands of the American chymist George Starkey up until his death in 1691. Shapin’s imposition of modern categories onto seventeenth-century chymistry is particularly ironic in view of his own extensively argued case for a “contextualist” history of science that would avoid the anachronistic excesses of those historians who have focused on the internal development of their subject. One might expect that Shapin’s oft-stated respect for historical context and actors’ categories would have steered him away from employing the dated yet modern distinction between “pseudoscience” and the so-called “proper sciences.” Yet a closer reading of his theoretical writings reveals a point of paramount importance that helps to explain this lapse—Shapin’s method consists largely of adding sociological explanations to the preexisting history of ideas rather than subjecting the results of intellectual history to critical analysis.

Newman, William R. (2006). Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-226-57697-8.

Alchemy now holds an important place in the history of science. Its current status contrasts with its former exile as “pseudoscience” or worse and results from several rehabilitative steps carried out by scholars who made closer, less programmatic, and more innovative studies of the documentary sources. Interestingly, alchemy’s outcast status was created in the eighteenth century and perpetuated thereafter in part for strategic and polemical reasons –and not only on account of a lack of historical understanding. Alchemy’s return to the fold of the history of science highlights important features about the development of science and our changing understanding of it.

Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Alchemy Restored". Isis. 102 (2): 305–312. doi:10.1086/660139. PMID 21874690. S2CID 23581980.

Principe and Newman themselves are in fact quite explicit that projecting the modern concept of pseudoscience on historical alchemy is badly mistaken, highly anachronistic, dated, and results from strategic and polemical reasons and a lack of historical understanding. So on the one hand there's the traditional conception of alchemy as a pseudoscience, still popular among the general public, but on the other hand this traditional conception is rejected by the expert scholars of the last 20–30 years. This makes it a difficult call. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

And to that I reply

Principe, looking at the history of alchemy in hindsight, doesn't seem to realize that alchemy was ridiculed so much because people of the time were a lot closer to it than he is, and they knew it a lot better than he does today. He thinks the ridicule caused alchemy to lose favor, as if it were part of some Illuminatus conspiracy all its own, when instead it lost favor because the few serious people that did it got nowhere and everyone else was just goofy and making all of chemistry look bad just when chemistry showed promise to be meaningful. That reasoning would be like declaring hundreds of years from now that homeopathy fell out of favor because it was ridiculed, rather than falling out of favor because it was ridiculous. Yet homeopaths claim instances where it worked and Principe falls into the trap of saying alchemy was more legitimate than its perception because some substances were invented by alchemists. It's not the same thing as being science. There's nothing wrong with turning out to be pseudoscience - like Newton, you can try to legitimize alchemy but when the evidence isn't there, it becomes zealotry instead.

And there's nothing wrong with pseudoscience having a place in the history of science, but seeking to revise history so that alchemy was not pseudoscience at all, because early proponents did what they could with the chemistry they had, knocks out every definition of science. There is no junk or pseudoscience that can't have a similar rehabilitation the same way.

Campbell, Henry (27 August 2014). "Is Alchemy Back In Fashion?". science20.com. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the criticism of one of the foremost academic experts on alchemy by the self-described "award-winning science writer and bestselling author Hank Campbell" (deleted WP page; AfD), who clearly is as ignorant as they come about this subject, is all but irrelevant. See WP:GEVAL. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• No. Alchemy was not a pseudoscience but a protoscience, and alchemy withered away as a separate field of study when it became chemistry. You can see this still in some of the obsolete chemical nomenclature. The same is true of ancient astrology, another protoscience which went the same way. -- The Anome (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• No. Apaugasma is 100% correct. All scholars who have seriously studied the history of alchemy have serious question about characterizing it as a pseudoscience, and Principe and Newman, who adamantly oppose the characterization for good reasons, are two of the most eminent current living specialists in the history of this subject. Calling alchemy a pseudoscience is an anachronism and distortion of its history. Throughout most of its history there was no meaningful distinction between chemists and alchemist. In fact, "chemist" (Latin "chemicus") is a neologism of the 16th century, so all serious chemists before this time were literally "alchemists".Ajrocke (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - it would be anachronistic to call alchemy a pseudoscience. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The problem in these discussions is that category placement is not subject to nuance at all. This means the nuance all has to be in the text. In the case of "pseudoscience", the general consensus has been that it should only be applied to concepts which have a current following. Problem is, since by necessity, it is often the case that such followings are minimal, there is no reasonable threshold that we can point to in deciding when an idea is still adhered to and when it is moribund. There are certainly New Age fetishists who believe in alchemy as "ancient knowledge" for which they adopt pseudoscientific thinking, but this doesn't seem to be a particularly strong advocacy within that movement (unlike, in comparison, the champions of quantum flapdoodle). But they do exist. The problem here is that categorizing Alchemy as pseudoscience is necessarily paying attention to this fringe movement in a way that may detract from the much more academically robust investigation of alchemy in its historical context. Perhaps the correct thing to do is to WP:SPINOUT an article about the fringe pseudoscientific adoptions of alchemy in current practice (if there are enough sources to write about this coherently). jps (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree about categories being a yes/no question where there's no room for nuance. If the question of this RfC had been 'should alchemy be characterized as pseudoscience', my answer would have been a firm no rather than a maybe. But if the question had been 'is there some relation between alchemy and pseudoscience' it would have been a firm yes.

  Alchemy was historically related to a complex web of ideas that also included various forms of learned magic ('talismanic magic', 'natural magic'), mysticism, astrology, etc., and as such became an important ingredient in the 19th-/20th-century re-imaginings of these ideas by occultist authors. But occultism is precisely characterized by scholars as a type of esotericism that seeks both to integrate and to overcome modern science, presenting itself –as well as the ancient and medieval ideas from which it takes it inspiration– as a superior alternative to secular or 'disenchanted' science. These occultist claims are, of course, essentially pseudoscientific, and as such they implicate alchemy in a pseudoscientific discourse.

  But then it is occultism that is per se pseudoscientific, not alchemy: many modern so-called 'alchemists' are really just weaving further on the web of occultist fantasies, and are all but completely disconnected from the historical practices and conceptualizations of alchemy. The question is indeed whether alchemy has a current following, as opposed to occultism. If it has, it is decidedly marginal, to the point that these pseudoscientific offshoots are at best tangential to the topic of alchemy taken as a whole. I'm fairly certain that there are not enough sources on this to legitimize a separate article, and it will in fact not be easy to even write a reliably sourced section about it in this one. But to the extent that such a section is possible, it may mention the word 'pseudoscience', and as far as I understand categories on Wikipedia, that may be enough to include the article in category:pseudoscience. On the other hand, we do not yet have such a section, so perhaps we should not yet have the category either.

  I will admit though that I'm weary of editors writing up such a section merely to be able to brand alchemy as pseudoscience: this article is not in a good state, but it is still blissfully free from the undue anti-pseudoscience rhetoric that plagues such articles as astrology. I would of course welcome a well-written section based upon actual experts on alchemy/occultism (the relevant field is 'Western esotericism studies') who are eager to understand and explain their subject material (rather than on skeptic authors who focus on debunking and discrediting the topic, while all too often being happy to remain largely or even entirely ignorant of it). However, such sections generally arise from knowledgeable editors who come to the article with a genuine interest and a mind to expand and improve its contents (rather than to ... well, debunk and discredit the topic without any interest to actually understand and explain it), and this is just not the case at this time. These things cannot be forced, and we should not try to force them: better to have the pseudoscience category without in-text support for it than to have a hastily written and undue section on this topic just for the sake of adding the category. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If we cannot manage to write an article/section about the pseudoscientific version of alchemy that is up to our standards, WP:ASTONISH, I would argue, would have us not categorize the article as such. It does the reader no good to see a category and be unable to find why the article is so categorized. jps (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Another article is probably not necessary although a few existing ones likely have mentions of alchemical concepts. The current article includes (unsourced): "The courses, books, organizations, and conferences generated by their students continue to influence popular applications of alchemy as a New Age medicinal practice." which could be clarified with a source, including a mention of modern pseudoscientific use (independently of the category)... —PaleoNeonate – 02:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: yes, you're right of course. That section desperately needs a reliable source, as well as a clarification that in the modern context spagyrics is considered pseudoscience. An alternative may be to remove the section for the time being. I'm not sure how notable it is, and I'm kind of disappointed that Edzard Ernst 2019, Alternative Medicine: A Critical Assessment of 150 Modalities doesn't mention it. Let's just not go overboard in citing skepticist criticism of it if that's the only kind of source we find. Only writing about something to discredit it, while acceptable in some cases, easily veers off into unencyclopedic (WP:NOTADVOCACY) territory, and should be avoided as much as possible in my view. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I doubt there's any issue with "discrediting" any modern usage, though and stating the obvious isn't necessarily advocacy territory, especially considering WP:PSCI and that reliably published sources exist... —PaleoNeonate – 13:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no issue at all with discrediting, or stating the obvious, as such. I explicitly said we should call modern spagyrics a pseudoscience if the section on it is to remain. The issue (only potential here) is rather with discrediting for the sake of discrediting, which would belong on Skeptopedia, but not on Wikipedia. If the only reliable sources that exist are written with the explicit and sole purpose of debunking or discrediting a subject, that is a strong indication in my view that the subject is not notable from a properly encyclopedic point of view (as may be the case for modern spagyrics). At least one or two reliable sources that approach the subject from an academic perspective (historical, sociological, philosophical, psychological, ... again, the most relevant field would be Western esotericism studies) are needed to get a broader view, one that goes beyond simply advocating against something. I'm aware that our guidelines are not adjusted to this, and that in many places Wikipedia actually functions as a kind of Skeptopedia. Now in some ways I actually like this Skeptopedia type of approach (there's a huge societal relevance to this), but I also do think that it should be its own project, and that it does not in fact belong here (we should rather be able to link to it, as in Wikipedia does not cover this subject, but a related article exists on Skeptopedia, or For more on this subject, see the article on Skeptopedia). These are my thoughts, but please feel free to disagree; I probably hold a minority view here, and I do respect other views on this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the brief mentions of spagyrics and TCM, as they are modern adaptations and were never part of alchemy proper. I see that spagyrics comprise most of the article on Paracelsianism. Perhaps the article should be re-titled "Spagyrics" with sections on Paracelsian and Modern uses. Alchemy and "plant alchemy" are really two different topics. We can put the pseudoscience category on that article. Skyerise (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It may be of interest to know that there used to be a separate page called Spagyric, which was merged with Paracelsianism on 5 July 2020‎. Also important to note is that spagyria primarily refers to the 16th-/17th-century iatrochemical practice, and as such does in fact deserve a place in this article. As for the section on 20th-century 'revival' spagyrics which was copied to Paracelsianism, I fear that the problem has merely been moved to that article. It still needs reliable sourcing, as well as a citation for the fact that it is a pseudoscience. I have already added Category:Pseudoscience to the article though. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not modern spagyrics is a pseudoscience is debatable. It depends on the exact definition. To the extent 'spagyrics' refers to the process and even the resulting product, it consists of perfectly scientific chemical extraction techniques. That is, the process uses chemical extraction method and produces a perfectly real and analyzable extract. Does the term 'spagyrics' also include the diagnosis and prescription for illness? That's not clear to me, and if it doesn't, then there is no pseudoscience involved, just archaic terminology. The only part which might be considered pseudoscience is the medical part, which is why either 'plant alchemy' (used since the early 20th century) or 'herbal alchemy' (used since c. 1960) would probably be better titles than 'spagryics'. 'Herbal alchemy' is the most common designation. In any case, if herbal extracts in and of themselves are 'pseudoscience', then so is vanilla extract. Skyerise (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• No - To refer to alchemy as a pseudoscience is incorrect and anachronistic. It is part of the history of science and philosophy. It belongs in the category "protoscience" (which should be reactivated). Netherzone (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Weak No - I think I agree with Netherzone that alchemy seems to be more of a "protoscience" than a "pseudoscience". That said, I don't think those two things are necessarily exclusive of each other, and I'm sure some nutty guy somewhere is still trying to turn lead into gold. NickCT (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Maybe Putting the article Alchemy into the category Category:Pseudoscience isn't the same thing as calling the historical subject of alchemy a pseudoscience. Anyone trying to do alchemy today isn't doing protoscience, but pseudoscience; if this article contained more material about such people, I'd be a solid "yes". The categorization might not be warranted as the article stands currently, but I wouldn't rule it out as a matter of principle, either. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• No. At least, not in Wikipedia's voice. Where relevant reliable sources have argued for and against the applicability of the term to alchemy we can of course cite them for what they say, but beyond that, it is simply anachronistic to apply such terms retroactively. 19:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 19:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• 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)

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)

Indeed, —PaleoNeonate – 21:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

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 (ASIN B07RG71R7W. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Forget astrology. PaleoNeonate's comparison of alchemy above with humorism, and medieval medicine generally, is much better: alchemy was very closely related to medicine on a theoretical level (see, e.g., here). Take, for example, Unani medicine: no one would think about calling Hippocrates' and Galen's medicine pseudoscience, but people who still cling to this in the 20th century are obviously practicing pseudoscience. The important difference is that medieval chemistry (alchemy), in contradistinction to medieval medicine, had a huge influence on modern occultism and esotericism. Thus we find figures like Samael Aun Weor referring to alchemical concepts. But another difference is that, while adherents of Unani medicine are still practicing a form of medicine that is almost identical to medieval medicine, Weor's imaginings have little or nothing to do with actual medieval alchemy. In that sense, it's rather questionable to represent figures like Weor as 'alchemists'. The same is true about the 'alchemists' we list here. There are not many good reliable sources on 20th-century 'alchemy', but it is a very complex subject indeed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

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)