Before we tackle the question of asking if Alchemy qualifies as a real science, let us first examine it through the lens of Robert Merton’s norms of science. Merton identified four key norms which he used to evaluate modern science: communism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. Alchemy, as was largely practiced from the Medieval period up through the 17th century, could be characterized as fitting many of these standards, at least partially.
While alchemists were in the habit of sharing their knowledge with their counterparts and others, it may be said the communism criterion is met. However, much of their published work was done using a secret code known primarily only by other alchemists, so technically this was not done for the public collective advancement. Also, as knowledge was shared in these exclusive circles, it may be said that reputation could be a consideration when presenting one’s findings, which goes against Merton’s concept of universalism. Another reason alchemists may have chosen to use a coded language to conceal their work was the hope of gaining wealth or notoriety in their attempts to transmute metals into gold, or the creation of the Philosopher’s Stone, a clear violation of disinterestedness of the practitioners. Last, in modern science, research must be rigorously tested and scrutinized by others. As alchemy was steeped in astrology and mysticism, its experts may have accepted ideas based more on tradition and less on testable results, which would struggle with the concept of organized skepticism.
Although several of the practices utilized by alchemists, such as experimentation and documentation and sharing of findings would eventually make their way into the doctrine of chemistry, given the above failures to coincide with Merton’s criteria, I will conclude that alchemy cannot be classified as a modern science.