Why was Alchemy Considered a Pseudoscience? Paracelsianism and the Controversies between the Scholars of the 16th and 17th Centuries
Identifikátory výsledku
Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F49777513%3A23330%2F22%3A43964719" target="_blank" >RIV/49777513:23330/22:43964719 - isvavai.cz</a>
Výsledek na webu
<a href="https://medwinpublishers.com/PhIJ/index.php" target="_blank" >https://medwinpublishers.com/PhIJ/index.php</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.23880/phij-16000230" target="_blank" >10.23880/phij-16000230</a>
Alternativní jazyky
Jazyk výsledku
angličtina
Název v původním jazyce
Why was Alchemy Considered a Pseudoscience? Paracelsianism and the Controversies between the Scholars of the 16th and 17th Centuries
Popis výsledku v původním jazyce
This paper has two main goals: firstly, to display the controversies between the physicians, natural and alchemical philosophers of the Scientific Revolution; and, secondly, to explain the factors which contributed in considering alchemy a pseudoscience. Through the study of primary and secondary sources as well as the comparative history it will be shown that the traditional historical view about the delay of the Chemical Revolution, according to which alchemy should not be considered a “science” and did not participate in the Scientific Revolution, was not created by the historians, but by the same alchemical philosophers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as they began to reject basic principles of alchemy by emphasizing it as a pseudoscience. Many factors contributed to this accusation, but this paper supports that one of the most important was the development and spread of Paracelsianism and the polemical debate existed among the Paracelsians (Paracelsus’s followers) and anti-Paracelsians (Paracelsus’s attackers) about the nature and scientificity of alchemy, as many supporters and opponents of Paracelsus labeled each other pseudo-Christians, pseudo-philosophers and pseudo-chemists.
Název v anglickém jazyce
Why was Alchemy Considered a Pseudoscience? Paracelsianism and the Controversies between the Scholars of the 16th and 17th Centuries
Popis výsledku anglicky
This paper has two main goals: firstly, to display the controversies between the physicians, natural and alchemical philosophers of the Scientific Revolution; and, secondly, to explain the factors which contributed in considering alchemy a pseudoscience. Through the study of primary and secondary sources as well as the comparative history it will be shown that the traditional historical view about the delay of the Chemical Revolution, according to which alchemy should not be considered a “science” and did not participate in the Scientific Revolution, was not created by the historians, but by the same alchemical philosophers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as they began to reject basic principles of alchemy by emphasizing it as a pseudoscience. Many factors contributed to this accusation, but this paper supports that one of the most important was the development and spread of Paracelsianism and the polemical debate existed among the Paracelsians (Paracelsus’s followers) and anti-Paracelsians (Paracelsus’s attackers) about the nature and scientificity of alchemy, as many supporters and opponents of Paracelsus labeled each other pseudo-Christians, pseudo-philosophers and pseudo-chemists.
Klasifikace
Druh
J<sub>ost</sub> - Ostatní články v recenzovaných periodicích
CEP obor
—
OECD FORD obor
60301 - Philosophy, History and Philosophy of science and technology
Návaznosti výsledku
Projekt
—
Návaznosti
S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach
Ostatní
Rok uplatnění
2022
Kód důvěrnosti údajů
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku
Název periodika
Philosophy International Journal
ISSN
2641-9130
e-ISSN
—
Svazek periodika
5
Číslo periodika v rámci svazku
1
Stát vydavatele periodika
US - Spojené státy americké
Počet stran výsledku
7
Strana od-do
nestrankovano
Kód UT WoS článku
—
EID výsledku v databázi Scopus
—