Vše

Co hledáte?

Vše
Projekty
Výsledky výzkumu
Subjekty

Rychlé hledání

  • Projekty podpořené TA ČR
  • Významné projekty
  • Projekty s nejvyšší státní podporou
  • Aktuálně běžící projekty

Chytré vyhledávání

  • Takto najdu konkrétní +slovo
  • Takto z výsledků -slovo zcela vynechám
  • “Takto můžu najít celou frázi”

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