[pcl]

From a scientific standpoint, nuclear fission is pretty much alchemy, right? I feel like we use the term to dismiss quacks, but changing one element into another is literally something we now know how to do.

Lead (atomic number 82) isn’t even that far from gold (atomic number 79).

[krapp]

Except the alchemists weren't practicing nuclear physicists, nor did they actually ever turn lead into gold through nuclear fission, nor would anything in their philosophy have led to doing so, either in theory or practice.

Just because it happens to be physically possible to turn lead into gold using a model that alchemists would never have even comprehended (as their principles were based on hermeticism and religion, not experimental science) doesn't mean they weren't quacks, or that they were half right. They were quacks, and it's OK to see them as such.

[the_af]

Alchemy was always quackery. It might have been proto-chemistry, but the minute it adopted scientific method it stopped being alchemy.

The problem with alchemy is that there was no rhyme or reason to its method, other than mysticisim; it wasn't scientific in nature.

If it sparked chemistry, that's a good thing; but it doesn't stop it from being quakery.

[COGlory]

Alchemy, by virtue of association with hermeticism, gets an unnecessarily bad reputation. We know it to be mostly false today, but it really did help develop chemistry.

[pests]

We live in an age of technical marvel but the goalposts have constantly shifted so nothing feels amazing anymore.