Alchemy: Science or Magic?

In the general Writers Block thread I talked about my villain, The Diamond Prince. When I asked for the opinion on if this was a good idea, people suggested that instead of the whole of his victims body becoming diamond, most of the body would turn to steam and all that would be left is the diamond and a puddle. In my mind I considered Alchemy to be a form of Magic, so turning a whole body into a diamond statue would be possible. Nut these anwser make me think they consider it to be a science and are grounding their criticism and ideas in that.

So my question is, do any of you consider Alchemy to be a Science or a form of Magic?

edited 20th Aug '11 8:55:46 PM by CCMAC0427

Depends on the Alchemy in question.

I personally used it as both... mostly magic, but with some psuedo-science thrown in just to piss off the hard science fiction crowd, if they ever somehow find themselves reading a fantasy novel. It's really useless as a science, but as a magic that looks scientific? Priceless.

I think of alchemy as a kind of magical science; it's definitely supernatural, but if you're calling it 'alchemy' you should really have it at least kind of look scientific. Of course, this is dependent on the work, and if the work in general is well done I won't care if they use a word that I intuitively interpret another way.

It's science, but it was influenced by a lot of spiritual and occult ideas. So I guess you could call it a magical practice too.

Psychological journey.

Fantastic Science.

It's a form of magic that uses science as it's basis for making things work rather than general magic terms, which makes it more efficient and complex and but harder to learn. Sort of like you use more energy to cast a fireball spell than you would being able to ignite the air by making a few adjustments in the molecules to ignite the air. One requires more energy and will, the other requires more knowledge.

Historically, alchemy is proto-chemistry. To the general populace, alchemy was oftern considered magic. In practice it is science, but in essence it belongs to the occult. Alchemists didn't care about discovering how elements work just for the sake of it, all they wanted is to find a way to turn base metals into gold and to discover the Philosopher's Stone.

edited 21st Aug '11 12:36:33 AM by Nightwire

This.

In fantasy works specifically it's treated as almost completely magic, more often then not, though.

Well, in Discworld alchemists are often portrayed as a bunch of delusional and overtly-optimistic Mad Scientists. I say that it is one of the most accurate depictions.

What I'm saying is that alchemy is different from pure magic. Both fields may feel similar, but they have different goals and employs different means to achieve said goals. You shouldn't confuse alchemy with magic. Even if a wizard employs Sufficiently Analyzed Magic, it doesn't make him an alchemist. He is still a wizard. If you just want to use magic, call it magic. Don't call it alchemy just to sound flashy.

edited 21st Aug '11 3:54:12 PM by Nightwire

Historical alchemy from before about 1700, when various sciences, including chemistry, started to be codified separately from the catch-all "natural philosophy," it would count as the science of the day. At the time, occult studies weren't separated from the harder sciences either, so the distinction isn't very meaningful. Although it's most famous as proto-chemistry and early medicine, there was also plenty of proto-psychology involved (again, that level of psychology was inseparable from the occult and metaphysical philosophy of the time), with some alchemists who emphasized this over material works and vice versa. Over the last couple centuries though, most alchemists have been mostly or exclusively psychological and/or spiritual in nature. For fictional systems using the term "alchemy," though, it's whatever the writer wants it to be. Your diamond dude sounds like magic, though granted magic itself can amount to soft science in a fictional setting.