In the following research paper, it will be argued that Lavoisier single-handedly advanced chemistry from the long-lasting period of alchemy to the era of modern chemistry that we know today. In support of such claim, Lavoisier’s discrediting of the phlogiston theory in 1778 and subsequent publication of “Elements of Chemistry” in 1787 will be discussed, with mention being made to Lavoisier’s implementation of algebra into his chemical equations. The question that will be asked is why did alchemy have to be replaced? What made the public and scientific community shy away from alchemy, and what were Lavoisier’s effect in that? When chemistry emerged, it became a concise practice that aided in bridging the gap between the natural sciences. …show more content…
A preconceived notion is that it seeks the elixir to life, and the perfect replica of gold. Historical texts can in fact prove that alchemists employed chemical substances and scientific thinking. So why did alchemy die off by the late 1700s? To answer this we go back to the beginning. Perhaps the earliest documented alchemical practices can be dated back to 800 B.C, China, where Taoist traditions began to emerge. The taoists believed that there was a medicine composed of a secret metallurgic recipe that resulted in “drinkable gold”. It would provide the consumer with physical immortality. To the West, in 450 B.C Empedocles of ancient Greece were applying rationalistic explanations to occurrences in nature, rather than empirical ones (Marks,6). He proposed the theory of four elements and assumed that everything was made up of four pure elements: fire, air, water, and earth. When the state of these objects changed, such as burning logs to ash, or ice to water. It changed in the “attraction” and “repulsion” of elements inside the substance and caused the object to appear different. Empedocles’ rationalistic explanation highly resembled modern science’s theory, atoms in molecules will change behaviour when the substance changes state (Purdue University, 3). Aristotle later added to the theory, stating that the pure elements are analogous to sensible qualities like the heat, cold, wetness, and dryness (Proclus,4). …show more content…
Between 800 B.C and 450 B.C, the Chinese established alchemical philosophy that incorporated religion, medicine, and metallurgy. During the Hellenistic Period, natural philosophy and the scientific view began to succeed, yet still incorporating mythology. The theory of the four elements was recognized. Resulting in nature constituting of opposite forces in elements and metals. During 31 B.C to 300 A.D metallurgy was exercised heavily, combinations of metal liquids were made with gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, and tin. Additionally, substances like mercury and sulphur were stated to have religious linkages to Hermetic and Gnostic practices. During this period, Zosimos explained “alchemy works directly with material substances, and seeks salvation through a spiritual regeneration of matter” (Fraser). Finally, by 800 A.D, alchemy began to adopt scientific methodology, and broke its bridges to Greek mythology and created new ones to paganism. Through laboratory tests, Gerber was able to determine the constituents of metal and isolated acids. Ultimately, in the 1600 year period, alchemy went from a religious practice that exhibited medical aspirations, to a practice that evaluated nature rationalistically and empirically though controlled experiments. Although the question remains: where did alchemy go from