It seems odd that Wooten would have these objections. In his book, The Invention of Science, he is really good on the necessity of a community for science to get started. Often people spend too much effort talking about hypothesis testing and never get around to asking where the hypotheses come from in the first place (conferences are not just a luxury item to fritter away precious grant money). Wooten goes to great lengths to rectify that.
I had thought that his main objection to alchemy in the book was over the secrecy that prevented it from becoming a collective activity. I will have to give it another read once I learn more about alchemy from your book.
I think David is right in that analysis Ken - that cultural change was very important. (In my book Curiosity I show how at least some of the community-building started in "secret societies" like the Accademia dei Lincei and Boyle's "Invisible College", which arose from the esoteric tradition.) This social aspect of early modern science is what unites Wootton and Shapin, though neither would want to admit as much. But as I point out in the book, alchemically oriented "books of secrets" had become a big business by the end of the 16th C (this of course referring to Eamon's work). So I find David's "alchemy was plain wrong, and all alchemists just charlatans and fools" oddly simplistic.
It seems odd that Wooten would have these objections. In his book, The Invention of Science, he is really good on the necessity of a community for science to get started. Often people spend too much effort talking about hypothesis testing and never get around to asking where the hypotheses come from in the first place (conferences are not just a luxury item to fritter away precious grant money). Wooten goes to great lengths to rectify that.
I had thought that his main objection to alchemy in the book was over the secrecy that prevented it from becoming a collective activity. I will have to give it another read once I learn more about alchemy from your book.
I think David is right in that analysis Ken - that cultural change was very important. (In my book Curiosity I show how at least some of the community-building started in "secret societies" like the Accademia dei Lincei and Boyle's "Invisible College", which arose from the esoteric tradition.) This social aspect of early modern science is what unites Wootton and Shapin, though neither would want to admit as much. But as I point out in the book, alchemically oriented "books of secrets" had become a big business by the end of the 16th C (this of course referring to Eamon's work). So I find David's "alchemy was plain wrong, and all alchemists just charlatans and fools" oddly simplistic.