Robert Boyle and Alchemy

There can be no clearer representation of the fine line between magic and science than the comparison of alchemy and chemistry. Let’s face it, when you think of alchemy you think of a bunch of robed old men sitting around a table trying to make coal into gold. At a glance, it’s something that you would never compare to chemistry, working with delicate elements and substances; it’s sort of a potions class. But if one were to look deeper at the meaning of alchemy, a science that at the time much of the world was a mystery to it’s people, the gaps between these two fields becomes only smaller and smaller. Essentially, alchemy was the chemistry of the medieval and biblical ages.
First, let’s understand the alchemist’s thought process, and what better a place to start then their love of gold? Even today, gold is a valuable metal. In fact it’s the most ductile and malleable metal on the planet. Alchemists of the time considered gold to be the purest substance in the universe, only giving rise to its value. They believed that by exploring gold’s “purity”, they could in essence find the solution to make other metals pure, thus finding a method to create gold from anything. This is where old stories of men trying to make gold with the most mundane objects come in to play, which are all mostly fabrications. In truth, alchemists were exploring the mysteries of life, purely and simply, no different then what chemists do today. One alchemist who devoted most of his life to doing just that was Robert Boyle.
Robert Boyle was born on January 25th in the year 1627 and lived till the winter of 1691 (Hunter). While Boyle is most commonly thought of as a chemist, he was also a natural philosopher, physicist, alchemist and inventor (Hunter). He was also known for his theological writings (Hunter). Despite his philosophical and scientific pursuits, he was also very focused on alchemy (Hunter). Boyle was considered to be the first modern Chemist (Hunter).
Boyle was the 7th son of Richard Boyle, the first Earl of Cork. Robert was the favorite out of his siblings (Silver). Boyle’s father had a huge influence on the chemist’s life. He influenced Robert’s religious ideas, and gave his son special treatment throughout his affluent childhood until his death in 1643 (Hunter). Boyle grew up in the opulent atmosphere that his father provided while living in Lismore, a castle refurbished by his father to become a large manor (Silver).
In young adulthood Boyle attended Eton College. After three years there he traveled to Florence Italy with his French tutor to study the “paradoxes of the great star – gazer”, Galileo Galilei, who at the time was still living (Hunter). Boyle studied in Florence until 1644 (Hunter). After he returned to England where he acquired his father’s manor in Lismore, as well as the other properties his father had purchased during the Cromwellian War (Hunter). It was during this time that Boyle decided to focus solely on his intrigue with science. He pursued it by becoming a part of a group of people known as the Invisible Inquirers who regularly gathered at Gresham College as well as Oxford to discuss their innovative scientific pursuits (Silver).
In 1653 Boyle moved to Ireland to live on one of the estates passed down to him by his father (Silver). This did not last long however, because Boyle soon became frustrated with the Irish communities misunderstanding of his work. He called Ireland “a barbarous country where chemical spirits were so misunderstood and chemical instruments so unprocurable that it was hard to have any hermetic thought in it” (Silver). This caused him to leave for Oxford in 1654. There Boyle continued on a journey of scientific discovery and academia (Silver).
Robert Boyle is best known for the law he created having to do with the inversely proportional relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of gas (Raymond). This is called Boyle’s law, something most people either learn of or hear about at some point during their academic career. Boyle is much more famously known as the father of chemistry, not the father of alchemy (Raymond). Aside from alchemy he also invested much of his time into theology (Kisby).
Boyle was thought of as a “free thinker”. Boyle was said to be a “lay preacher”, not literally as the term suggests, but more so through his writings about religion (Raymond). The main topic he focused on was “dogmatic theology” (Raymond). Dogmatic theology is the official theology recognized by an organized church body (Raymond). This “part of theology which treats the theoretical truths of faith concerning God and his work, whereas moral theology has for its subject matter the practical truths of morality” (Raymond). These are the issues that the church tried to resolve. These problems were faced with much debate. Boyle did not enjoy the many ceremonies that went along with religion, but was a regular at church. Raymond, the writer of Boyle, Christian Gentleman, sums of Boyle’s view of religion as “Christianity meant essentially the practice of holy living; its fruits, peace and charity” (Raymond).
Boyle also strived in life to “discover the nature and purpose of God” (Raymond). He thought the pursuit of this to be one of the most important things in life. He thought this was a contributing factor for why we made such great strides in chemistry and other fields. Besides writing some works that discussed religion, Boyle also helped finance translations of the New Testament into different languages. He did this so more people could learn about religion. He also “left funds for eight annual lectures in a London parish for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels” (Raymond). Leaving money and giving your earnings to something like these two things was only seen when someone had true faith as money was not easy to come by in Boyle’s time. Boyle’s religion is something which has had much debate and cases sides to be taken, but the evidence of him being religious is much greater than him not being religious.
Some described Boyle as a Calvinist “Puritan at heart, and Anglican” (Woodall). This is just the opposite of what was revealed. Boyle was found to have had high regards to the Bible, which is noted in his writing. He refers to the Truth and uthority (sic) of the Scripture which atheists and antiscripturists (sic) allege to over throw (Woodall). Boyle was religious and the evidence is undisputable. This did not make him a hypocrite. It gave him many perspectives on life and ultimately helped him become the great success he was.
While he spent much of his time writing about religion, he also spent a majority of his time performing alchemical experiments. Much of his experiments were performed with the hopes of turning objects into silver or gold (Kisby). He believed the “transmutation” of metals was possible. He believed so strongly in this, that he managed to get the statute of King Henry the 6th against the multiplying of gold and silver repealed (Raymond). He also focused on the study of the expansive powers of freezing liquids, and the refractive powers of crystals, electricity, and color (Kisby). These alchemical discoveries lead him to come up with revolutionary ideas about the structure of matter. He was one of the first scientists to talk about atoms, particles, and how they moved and worked. He documented these findings and his beliefs in a book titled Dialogue on the Transmutation and Melioration of Metals (Kisby).
While his mostly traditional religious views seem to class with his scientific findings, he hoped to use these findings to somehow become more religious. He hoped that by studying alchemy he would be able to create the philosopher’s stone. He hoped that he could use this stone to communicate with angles and maybe even communicate with God. He also feared that the stone may be thought of as an object of the Devil, as it was “a shortcut the appeared to offer to an understanding of nature” (Kisby). To hide these thought from others he would write notes using a symbolic language that only he could decipher. In these notes he describes how to separate gold from silver and how to separate gold from copper (Kisby).
A majority of thinkers alive during Boyle’s time ignored his ideas. This was because they were alive during the Enlightenment, a time when rational observation was thought to be better than mystical ideas. Even up until the 1950’s alchemy was still thought of as full of too much mysticism and secrecy to be considered real science. Currently historians have come to realize that without Boyle’s alchemical findings and experimentation modern chemistry wouldn’t exist (Kisby).
So what is similar between the modern day chemistry and alchemy? For starters, chemistry is about the science of matter and some of the changes it undergoes. It is no different than alchemy, as alchemists too observed the changes of matter, only just through their eyes. Chemistry’s two key differences are the fact that chemists know about atoms and elements, and there was no necessity for the science. Alchemy came from a time where invisible plagues and sickness destroyed much of the population. As a direct result Chemistry was born, as scientists created potions and cures to combat the un – seeable germs. Alchemy was the predecessor of Chemistry. It formed the basis of the science behind the field and influenced many great thinkers of the day to pursue the scientific field. While not completely similar, Chemistry and Alchemy share a close bond.
For our exhibit piece we decided to recreate a typical alchemist’s work table. By looking at the table you will be able to see just how similar many of the instruments and tools used back then look similar to modern tools used in current chemistry.

Works Consulted

Abbri, Ferdinando. "Lawrence M. Principe (ed.), Chymists and Chymistry. Studies in the History of Alchemy and Early Modern Chemistry." Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy 47.1 (2009): 115-118. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 13 Oct. 2010.

"Alchemy & Chemistry Introduction." Library, The University of Sydney. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/libraries/rare/modernity/alchem.html.

“Dogmatic Theology.” Academia. Ru.Web. 15 October. 2010. http://en.academia. ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1886823.

"From Alchemy to Chemistry: Five Hundred Years of Rare and Interesting Books." School of Chemical Sciences University of Illinois, UC. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mainzv/exhibit/.

Hunter, Michael Cyril William. Boyle: between God and Science. New Haven: Yale UP, 2009. Print.

Kisby, Fiona. What Was Alchemy and Why Was It Important to Robert Boyle. Lesson Plan. 2004. Web. Oct. 2010. .

Kohn, Livia, and Robin Wang. Internal Alchemy: Self, Society, and the Quest for Immortality. Magdalena, NM: Three Pines, 2009. Print.

Principe, Lawrence M., and Robert Boyle. The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and His Alchemical Quest. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ., 1998. Print.

Raymond J. Seeger, “Boyle, Christian Gentleman” in The Journal of American Scientific Affiliation, 37 (September 1985): 183-184 http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1985/JASA9-85Seeger.html.

Silver, Brian. The Ascent of Science, p. 114. Oxford University Press US, 2000. Print.

Snell, Meliss. "Alchemy - The Chemistry of the Middle Ages." Medieval History - Life in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. .

“Timeline for Core Chemistry.”- Ambrose Video. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. .

Woodall, David L. “ The Relationship between Science and Scripture in the Thought of Robert Boyle.” The American Scientific Affiliation 49.32 (1997). Web. 13 October. 2010 .

Stick Waggling: Motion Controls in Video Games.

There is no denying it. The hilariously named Wii has dominated a good portion of the gaming market with it's advancements in the fields of motion controls. To those who are not aware of the revolution; motion controls allow video game players to actually move physically around either through a special controller, pad, or camera in order to interact with the gaming world. Sports games, like Wii Sports, actually get the player to move around and make them feel like they're playing baseball, bowling, or what have you.

Nintendo's massive success with the concept has caused the company's two major game console competitors (Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3) to announce their own attempts to join the motion control band wagon. Microsoft has introduced it's own Kinect, a bold plan of attack that uses motion control with no controller and only a camera. While Sony has released PlayStation Move, which is similar to the Wii in the sense that it uses a controller but it also uses a camera to track the wand rather than a light sensor.

You can bet we're going to see some huge console wars, with players fighting over what companies did motion controls better.

But I digress. Motion controls have indeed sped the improvement of technology within the gaming industry. Companies are now focusing on improving the basic hardware of the actual systems to improve the controls, rather than trying to top the last generation's graphics. There generally has been improvement of motion controls as a whole, as demonstrated with the PlayStation Move.

Now that I got the good of motion controls out of the way, let's move on to the bad.

Gaming is still a young industry. However, it is a media no different than books or movies. Games tell stories and reveal art through the most interactive means currently out there; by involving the audience in the story and allowing them to choose what they want to do. But it's still a media. It's a means of entertaining yourself between the brief windows of breaks in your everyday life. Books, movies, music; they all are meant to accomplish the same thing. They entertain people.

It's difficult to argue that motion controls do not entertain people; you've probably picked up Wii Sports and have enjoyed a game or two at least once in the past year. But how long does that last? An hour, maybe two? There are games meant to last longer for these systems, of course, like Super Smash Brothers Brawl or even serious games like Silent Hill and Heavy Rain. But here's the thing.

How long do you like to play a game? Usually it's just until you get bored or until you run out of free time. Your body is completely relaxed and you can savor the fun of the game. It's no different than when you read a book. You don't run around like a maniac while trying to read a page, you find a quiet place to sit down and relax. How in the world are you supposed to relax and enjoy yourself when playing a game with motion controls? Flailing your arms around like ants are in your pants can only lessen your time playing the game because it's a good way to tire yourself out physically.

People have claimed "Oh, it adds fun to the game. It really makes you feel like you're in the world." People play games to take them places they've never been before; but I don't think they really want to be in those places themselves. I know I'd be the first to soil myself if I was ever in the position my character is in every five seconds of Call of Duty. And now I'm expected to move around like my guy in the game? No chance, I'm not fit enough to be whipping my limbs around like I've got a spastic twitch. Besides motion controls don't make you feel as you're in the game world, they make you feel like you're doing an aerobic exercise routine in your living room. And its true motion controls are fun for now, but that neatly brings me to my next point.

A gimmick can only be described as something meant to make a product stand out in order to make it sell better. You're supposed to have fun with motion controls, that's the point of the advertisement. A fun, new way to play video games. But please bare in mind; Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are all business companies. They're not like Mickey Mouse, waving you into a colorful of happiness and wonderful rides. Businesses only care about you because you give them money (Okay, so maybe they are like Mickey Mouse). The point of a business is to earn more money, you are a customer and you have money. See the connection here?

This is nothing new, companies have always tried to grab our attention with "new shiny objects" that will sell their products. The Wii in particular sold well because it targeted a new audience that had otherwise been neglected this whole time, casual gamers (Older folks, children, families, etc).

How about the PlayStation Eye? A camera that let an image of you play on the TV screen early on in the PlayStation years. Maybe Virtual Boy? Or remember the Zapper Gun from the NES? That was a gimmick as well, but now most people only remember it for the game Duck Hunt.

Right now, motion controls are, hopefully, a temporary thing. But many hardcore defenders of the consoles advertising motion controls claim it's a new and interesting idea that will revolutionize gaming. It's a gimmick people; it's no different than 3D in movies. You can't revolutionize the gaming entertainment field by using something that was meant to initially bring in the big bucks.

(WARNING: Video has somewhat offensive language and material.)



Last but not least; motion controls are not an effective means of playing a game, period. What have most of the games that advertise motion controls done with them? Some games do use motion controls as an optional mechanic, but usually it's safer to play with a real controller. Take Super Smash Bros Brawl for example. You CAN play with a Wii Remote, but most people who play it will reach for a GameCube Controller before a Wii wand. Some games like Monster Hunter Tri, don't even play well at all with a remote and force you to buy a D-Pad Controller add on if you want to have any chance of playing the stupid thing.

How about combat based games like God of War? How in the world am I supposed to do a fifty hit combat with a PlayStation Move controller? Why not just rip my arms off from the start? They're going to be useless after I attempt it anyway. Then there's the Xbox's Kinect. Do I even need to explain what can go wrong when your controller is a camera? What happens if you step on the cat while playing?

I'm sure games for these systems will come up with clever ideas to avoid these problems but here's the thing. Isn't that just dodging the issue? If motion controls were the new revolution of the gaming industry, why are they altering their design to meet the standards of traditional gaming? The answer is simple; for gaming consoles, motion controls are a fad.

There's no doubt that research into motion controls will continue into the beyond; maybe until there is at last a virtual world. As they stand now, they have a limited lifespan on gaming consoles. Let's move onto the next gimmick.

10, Roger EbertMay. "Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3D Movies - Newsweek." Newsweek - National News, World News, Business, Health, Technology, Entertainment, and More - Newsweek. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. .

Croshaw, Ben "Yahtzee" "Video Galleries : Zero Punctuation : E3 2010." The Escapist. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. .

"Gimmick." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. .

"Virtual Boy." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. .