Why did not the Chemistry emerged sooner?
Thomas S. Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (1) states “…Concerned with scientific development, the historian then appears to have two main tasks. On the one hand, he must determine by what man and at what point in time each contemporary scientific fact, law, and theory was discovered or invented. On the other, he must describe and explain the congeries of error, myth, and superstition that have inhibited the more rapid accumulation of constituents of the modern science text…”
There was a belief that all matter composed of four matter in the Aristotle’s four elements theory. This theory was considered valid for approximately 1800 years. The transition from Aristotle’s four elements theory to atomic theory was slow. Slow transition delayed chemistry’s advancements. Searching of a not existing Philosopher’s Stone for roughly 1900 years from Zosimos of Panopolis to Thomas Browne resulted in an empty hand. On the other hand, chemistry (and physics) constructed the first nuclear reactor in 1942 and the transformation of an element to another happened afterwards. This caused because of the scientific theory, that explains observed phenomena and leads to theoretical possibilities, predictions. Beyond theory, there lie theoretical possibilities, for alchemists this was philosopher’s stone, for chemists this was controlled nuclear fission. Examples of theoretical possibilities can be seen in our time. Predicted by Schwarzchild, black holes were pictured and published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters in 2019 (2). This could not be possible without a theory that leads to predictions. In this article, I will try to tell why did it took so long for the transition of chemistry and I will assert some possible explanations to that problem.
The Sacred Art first emerged in Egypt, was definitely associated with the religious rites, and the theological teaching. The Egyptian priests claimed to imitate the work of deity, by looking at the nature. The Sacred Art transmuted to Alchemy as a result of contact with Europe (3, 4). Alchemy prevailed in Europe because of Europe’s handicrafts and tenets, mysticism of Catholic Church, conception of nature from 9th century until towards the end of the 18th century. The alchemist constructed his ordered scheme of nature on the basis of everything lives, including metals, minerals. The alchemist regarded all living matter consist of three qualities; body, spirit and soul (5). Transmutation, they thought be happened only with effecting the spirit. Alchemist was obliged to use the language which had been developed for the expression of human emotions and desires, not only for the explanation of the facts it observed, but also for the bare recital of these facts.
Transmutation of elements was a policy dictated by alchemist’s conception of the order of nature; alchemist was following the method which he conceived to be that used by nature herself. Moreover, that time’s natural philosophy verified the transmutation of elements. If the transmutation of elements would be a dream, the alchemical theory would be destroyed, along with a belief in the natural order. Alchemist conception of orderly nature was so intimately connected with his ideas of morality and religion, that to disprove the possibility of the transmutation would be removed not only the basis of the alchemist’s system of thinking also ethics of alchemist. Disproving of alchemist’s theory could have resulted in disbelief in God (6). Alchemists misinterpreted the nature with their theory. They had a theory about natural order however, they did not have quantitative conceptions about the nature formation process. They assumed that gold was produced at Earth’s bowels and that the only property of metal was maturity. According to alchemical theory, when a metal completes its maturity, it would turn to gold in the bowels of Earth. It can be said that this theory partly connected to observed phenomena but not a qualitative description of the elements.
If you were an alchemist in the 15th century, you would look at nature and try to copy it in your laboratory. Nature; with her reactions, looked to alchemist’s eyes as a hardworking mechanism. She gives precious minerals and metals in her heart. Alchemists thought that if nature can do the transmutations, they can do that too. Even better, they thought to catalyze and to accelerate the process. From this idea, the transmutation of base metals to gold, the Philosopher’s Stone idea came into their minds. In theory, this idea is valid. However, it seems that when thinking of gold formation, external conditions which gold minerals formed must be thought of.
Alchemists treated nature as a giver of minerals and never minded the formation process. Roger Bacon states in his book The Mirror of Alchemy (8); …but I must tell you that nature always intendeth and striveth to the perfection of gold”. There was a notion in the medieval and Renaissance that Worldly minerals and metals are able to grow and strive to perfection. The lump of coal left in the earth long enough may become diamond, metals in the earth, when left to themselves, would naturally all tend toward their respective greatest purity and perfection. This theory paved the way for the Philosopher’s Stone which is some sort of catalyst that, when applied to metals, the transmutation process would accelerate. This theory can be followed to Greek Philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle’s theory was about four elements that made up all matter in the terrestrial world; Earth, Fire, Water, and Air. Each element was composed of two separate “qualities.” Earth was cold and dry, the fire was hot and dry, water was cold and wet and the air was hot and wet. By exchanging one of the qualities elements would transform one another. Water (cold and wet) became air (hot and wet) when the quality “cold” was exchanged for the quality “hot.” Aristotle’s theory explained the formation of minerals and metals by propounding intermediate substances. Water becomes air while it produces a watery vapor. Smoky Earth formed when earth exchanges its qualities with fire. The theory states that; watery vapor and smoky earth yields minerals and metals (9). Aristotle’s description of element transmutation was changed in the hands of Arabic writer Jabir (Ebû Mûsa Câbir bin Hayyân) and Rhazes (Ebû Bekir Muhammed bin Zekeriyyâ er-Râzî). Smoky earth was renamed Sulphur and watery vapor renamed as mercury. By reacting, mixing, distilling making all sorts of physical tests to mercury and sulphur in different compositions, alchemists attempted to speed up the transmutation process. The theory of the Philosopher’s Stone as said before is valid. If matter composed of four elements and they would have two qualities that can be exchanged between them; the transmutation can yield gold.
Lack of curiosity to change theoretical background: Ptolemy system used by scientists from 2 B.C. to 2 A.C. Ptolemy system were used to explain celestial body’s trajectories and stars movements. However, discrepancies between theory and observation, for example changed equinox times, planets movements, casted doubt to theory. Theory was never quite compatible with the best obtained observations. Whenever, they encountered a discrepancy, astronomers got rid of difficulty by making adjustments in unified circles theory. Reflection of Ptolemy’s system in chemistry is four elements theory, three principles theory and lastly phlogiston theory. All three theory can be extended and adjusted according to observed discrepancies. However, as arrangements were made, discrepancies were increased because conflict, corrected in one place, was immediately unfolding in another. As Karl Popper said “A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.” Thus, alchemists got curious about nature too, however, no objections to theories ever done their theories arranged to explain all natural phenomena. Flexibility and arrangements showed the voids in theories, however no alchemists tried to change theory altogether.
Ancient alchemists did not criticize Aristotle’s theory until 16th century. Alchemists put forward assumptions and reconciled their theory with natural phenomena. That is what also modern scientists do. Modern scientists compose a theory with some assumptions. If theory gives the same results as experiment, theory become valid. Popper explains this process in The Logic of Discovery (11); “A scientist, whether theorist or experimenter, puts forward statements, or systems of statements, and tests them step by step.” There were objections to the transmutation of metal, especially from scholastics. In the 13th century, scholastics were in agreement with Aristotle in maintaining that species constituted distinct orders that could interchange their formal qualities. Alchemists dodged these allegations with turning to Catholic religious iconography. From the early 15th century, Christ and of the Virgin Mary was used as allegories of the alchemical process.
Syed states “Jabir’s scientific texts are studied in the context of reductionism (writer implies four-element theory), they appear to bear a recognizable doctrinal unity. In this way, their notorious incoherence largely vanishes.”(12) It seems that Syed’s statement fits with all alchemists. The pursuit of philosopher’s stone was attested with Aristotle’s four elements theory. As well as other alchemists, Jabir did not try to falsify assumptions of four elements theory. It could be said that four elements theory explained the experiments and phenomena in the alchemist’s environment and they do not think outside the box either queried. However, this would be over-simplification. Alchemists had not to desire to falsify four elements theory. Notably, the transition to chemistry from alchemy did not happen with increased chemical instruments. Transition happened with increased discrepancy between theory and experiments. To elaborate on the transition, I must express clearly at what period of time did transition took place.
The prefix al- of alchymia is nothing but the Arabic definite article added to Greek chemeia or chymeia. This al- prefix was misinterpreted in the 17th century as connoting the gold-making endeavor. Hence, the “synonyms became non-synonymous”. High reputation were given to alchemy. However, when “Great Works” of alchemists proven to be wrong continuously, professionals tended to legitimize their activity by dissociating it from the “alchemy”. There were some “professional” people in the Chemistry history at 15–16th century, Paracelsus was one of them. Paracelsus was the most curious and influential character of the sixteenth century. He gave alchemy a new purpose to what we called; iatrochemistry. His early education was in mining and mineralogy. In the past, diseases are thought to be occurred from discrepancies between the three fluid of body; blood, phlegm and bile. However, Paracelsus treated human body as a chemical system. He and his followers think that disease was associated with the upsets of the chemical balance. He tried to see human being as a chemical system, and this provided a different perspective than alchemy. As one can see in every chemical system, external conditions and chemicals can affect the chemical system. Because of this, chemicals and compounds of medicines were tried for diseases by Paracelsus. He and his followers tried to made drugs from drug sources by means of chemical processes (13). These chemical processes improve and increase the medicinal chemistry knowledge. Paracelsus proposed that true aim of alchemy is to cure diseases and the preparation and study of drugs. It could be said that experimental chemistry started with the distillation of compounds however, experimental chemistry with a proper theoretical background started with the Paracelsus. Paracelsus also made contributions to chemistry such as; he obtained the hydrogen gas in the 16th century, he used quicksilver for medicines first. Transition of chemistry also required a theoretical background that provides new possibilities. Paracelsus gave a new purpose to alchemy and started the experimental chemistry with a proper theoretical background.
Lack of understanding between alchemists: Particular attention must be given to language of alchemists. There was no common language between all alchemists. For example, Eirenaeus Philalethes who is 17th century alchemist wrote this passage; “In our water is required first fire, second the liquor of the vegetable Saturnia, third the bond of mercury. The fire is the mineral Sulfur, and yet it is not properly mineral, nor metallic, but a medium between the mineral and metallic. . . . It is a Chaos or Spirit, because our fiery Dragon, which conquers all things”. There were also problems in the case of source identification, compositional structures and a tendency toward obscurity and secrecy among texts. There were symbols and different names for each chemical for different writers. This eventually caused lack of communication and misunderstanding between alchemists and also caused discrepancies between same experiments. Experiments with the “first fire” “but a medium between the mineral and metallic” sentences could be misunderstood from the reader and completely different experiment could be done.
Communication between alchemists has been hard for a long time. There are phones, emails, books and face to face conversations in the 21st century. However, alchemists and other scientists were limited in communication. Printing houses were not to be founded until the 15th century. Phones, mails are the 21st century’s inventions. Alchemists have only face to face conversations which can be useful for restricted area. Books were written but they were only in a limited number. Face to face conversations can be easily modified by the listening side. Discoveries, findings, inferences, and experiments were not easily distributed to the world because of restricted communication. Lack of communication caused repeated experiments, disregarding the discrepancies, increased trust in the theory and uninformed about the world.
Lack of scientific instruments: If a theory gives same results in different external conditions, this theory is deemed true to scientist, until they falsify it. The question here is “How can we differ our external conditions until theory breaks down?” and “Can scientists predict their theories inductive boundaries?” “Are we pursuing a non-existing proofs?” This is what alchemists did not do. They did not think of boundaries and feasibleness of their theory. Theory’s assumptions never experimented neither queried. This type of incuriousness may have all sorts of causes. One of them surely, lack of chemical tests and instruments. For experimenting, chemical tests that do not depend on scientist’s perceptive abilities must be employed. Proving the theory and inference must be independent of the scientist’s judgment. This type of proof can only be provided instruments of science. Alchemists had only physical tests that were not worthwhile. Distillation was their only chemical instrument however, the instrument was only used for extracting aromas, alcohols from flowers. The alchemists have thought that most effective method of extracting is heating. Because of that, alchemists constantly distilled, heated, and incinerated the substances, to get their inner kernel. However, distillation did not used for the testing of alchemical theory, they did for extraction of fifth essence. In the late 17th century, new devices invented, such as air pump and spectroscopy (9). These provided new ways to investigate the matter in a way that nature never gave to alchemists. Quantitative measurements became widespread and useful, thus allowing chemists to precisely determine what they have in their hands.
In 1608 the alchemist Sendivogius proposed that a metal could be transformed to descending order. He placed the seven planets in the following order: Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sol, Venus, Mercury, Luna. He also states that “The virtues of planets descend, but do not ascend; it is easy to change Mars (Iron) into Venus (Copper), for instance, but Venus cannot be transformed into Mars” (15). Limitation of alchemy were introduced. Because of the only scientific method is the eyes of the alchemists, the copper color can be mixed with the rusted iron color. Their spectroscopy device was their eyes, so they could misinterpret the color of chemicals.
Chemistry: Chemistry were emerged by the peer reviewing of discoveries and replicating the results. Alchemy, with their secret and vague language, clandestine enterprise could not develop such a community. This community inquired about the results and experiment it in their laboratories. This provided well-coordinated and universal language of chemistry, the language of science.
Karlsruhe Congress was an international meeting where atomic weights, notations, chemical nomenclature discussed. The meeting was ended with no agreement, however, on the meeting’s last day reprints of Stanislao Cannizzaro’s 1858 paper on atomic weights, in which he utilized earlier work of Amedeo Avogadro, were distributed. Cannizzaro discussed the atomic weights and atomic theory in his letter. At the beginning of his letter, he states “In order to lead my students to the conviction which I have reached myself, I wish to place them on the same path as that by which I have arrived at it — the path, that is, of the historical examination of chemical theories.” As I discussed earlier, historic chemical theories and their assumptions examination hold great value to realize the real dependability of a theory. Although there are wrong statements and calculations (Ozone represented as eight oxygen, Carbonic Acid represented with no hydrogen…etc.) in the letter, Cannizzaro clearly showed that atomic theory fits new experiments and results with further examinations. Cannizzaro; as a teacher, proposed methods of learning for atomic theory, which eased the comprehension of teachers in Congress. Cannizzaro took Avodagro’s, Gay-Lussac’s and Berzelius’s theories and gave a new whole picture of the atomic theory which was explanatory and simple in the light of new experiments.
To get to the atomic theory, it could be said that history of atom must be investigated. Leucippus and his pupil Democritus the ancient Greek philosophers constructed a theory about the smallest piece of all matter “Atom”. Atoms were uncuttable, eternal, uncreated and infinite in number. Qualities of elements were caused by the atom’s kind. However, as Aristotle’s four elements theory gained attention and reputation atomic theory got lost. In the 14th century, rediscovery of major works describing atomic teachings, including Lucretius’s De Rerum Natura, Laertius’s Lives and Opinions of eminent Philosophers, increased the scholarly attention to the theory (16). It was not completely accepted in Europe because of atomism relation to Epicureanism. Epicureanism, which contradicted orthodox Christian teachings, belief in atoms was not considered acceptable by most European philosophers. Pierre Gassendi revived the atomic theory by stating atoms were not infinite in numbers but quite numerous. Later, in the 18th century, it was Lavoisier who took the atomic theory and accommodate with the combustion theory. Oxidation of metals was a problem for phlogiston theory. When metals oxidize they gain weight which by that time cannot be explained with phlogiston. Phlogiston was the oxygen of alchemists. It was first presented from Stahl who is 17th century alchemist (6). It was phlogiston that reacts and combusts the matter. Burning out meant depletion of phlogiston in the air. It could be said that phlogiston resembles oxygen however, they have distinct differences. Firstly phlogiston thought apart from air, secondly Becher states that air full of phlogiston cannot be burned, thirdly, Becher stated that breathing out produces phlogiston (17). Calcination (oxidation) caused problem for phlogiston theory. Phlogiston theory was too vague and flexible even it became negative weight for substances. At first, Stahl states that combustible substances contains phlogiston which with burning it depletes, matter loses weight. When the product of heating a substance, for example, tin or lead, weighed more than the substance itself, scientists queried about phlogiston theory. “Phlogiston have negative weight in unburned substances and whenever calcination happens substance gains weight” was alchemist’s defense. The same incuriosity happens here also. First objections to their defense came from Irish chemist Robert Boyle. Boyle supposed that the gain in weight was often caused by the “matter of fire” adding itself to the substance which was heated. No one knew in that time, however this objections were downfall of alchemy. Three principles were reduced to one principle “Phlogiston”, but theory’s vagueness and looseness caused destruction. Lavoisier experimented about oxides then explained the combustion with oxygen in the air. It was John Dalton then at the start of 19th century who put forward his ideas about atom. From his experiments and inferences, he suggested that atoms were like tiny, hard balls. Each chemical element had its own atoms which differs from others in mass. Dalton asserted that if the same two elements were combined to form a number of different compounds, they combined in a definite proportions. For example, Dalton noted that 100 grams of Tin combines with either 13,5 grams of oxygen or 27 grams of oxygen forms a ratio of 1:2. Dalton with observing the same proportion in other reactions asserted that the pattern was a general one. He noted that an atomic theory elegantly explains this law. After that, Brownian motion, Ideal Gas Law, Discovery of electron, proton and neutron speed up the transition from four elements theory to atomic theory.
Şengör, in his book “How a Society commits Suicide?” states (18) “…Science improved with the production of brave hypotheses and scrutiny of these with observation. Any hypotheses do not contain any contradiction within itself as long as it does not contradict the laws of logic. It is the incongruity with the observation that removes hypotheses. There would be no production of a better hypothesis by combining observation with the hypothesis. The failed hypothesis is abandoned while a new one produced.” It could be said that in this paragraph Şengör summarized the scientific advancement. The theory of four elements does not contradict the observation until the 18th century, so there was no reason to abandon theory and look for another explanation. However, under the light of Lavoisier’s experiments four-element and phlogiston theories started to break down and search for new theory started. With John Dalton’s law of definite proportions, atomic theory started to replace four elements theory and a new science emerged: Chemistry.
References
1. KUHN, Thomas S. Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı. 10. İstanbul : Kırmızı Yayınları, 2019.
2. Event Horizon Telescope. Web Page Article. 2019.
3. D. THORBURN BURNS. Swiss contributions to chemistry: ®ve hundred years of progress, from alchemy to a modern science. Analytica Chimica Acta. 1999. Vol. 393, p. 3–10.
4. MARTINON-TORRES, Marcos and REHREN, Thilo. Alchemy, chemistry and metallurgy in Renaissance Europe: a wider context for fire-assay remains. Historical metallurgy. 2005. Vol. 39, no. October, p. 14–28.
5. FERRARIO, Gabriele. The Symbols for Different chemicals Understanding the Language of Alchemy: The Medieval Arabic Alchemical Lexicon in Berlin,. Digital Proceedings of the Lawrence J. Schoenberg Symposium on Manuscript Studies in the Digital Age. 1908. Vol. 1, no. 1.
6. MUIR, M.M. Pattison. The Story of Alchemy and The Beginning of Chemistry. Ankara : Gece Kitaplığı, 2018.
7. REHREN, Marcos Martinón-Torres and Thilo. Alchemy, chemistry and metallurgy in Renaissance Europe: a wider context for fire-assay remains. HM. 2005. Vol. 39, no. 1.
8. BACON, Roger. The Mirror of Alchemy. Library of Alexandria, 1931.
9. MORAN, Bruce T. Distilling Knowledge. Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 2005.
10. CULTURE.PL. Who Was Michael Sendivogius? Biography Of An Alchemist | Article | Culture.pl. . 2015.
11. POPPER, Karl R. The Logic of Discovery. London and New york : Taylor & Francis, 2003.
12. HAQ, Syed Nomanul. Names, Natures and Things. Boston, London and Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.
13. HOSEIN TAJADOD. Paracelsus, the Founder of Chemical Therapeutic Who Initiated the Application of Chemistry to Life. Basic Sciences of Medicine. 2014. Vol. 3, no. 3, p. 60–62.
14. Portraits of Paracelsus. .
15. HARDING, Tim. The Transition from Alchemy to Chemistry. [no date].
16. PYLE, Andrew. Atoms and Atomism. Cambridge, Massachusetts : The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010.
17. CONANT, James Bryan. The Overthrow of Phlogiston Theory: The Chemical Revolution of 1775–1789. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950.
18. ŞENGÖR, A.M. Celal. Bir Toplum Nasıl İntihar Eder. İstanbul : KA kitap, 2016.
