dgtech said:
Maybe I didn't put it out well enough. They didn't know everything we know, but they knew eventual possibilities and tried to reach them it what was appropriate during their time.
No, they didn't know of the possibilities, because they had no valid theories. They didn't even have empirical theories. What they had, was the kind of 'theories' you get today from a crackpot, or person uneducated in scientific method attempting science: High-flying, speculative, vague loads of nonsense, "explaining" unknown things in terms of ill-defined, mysterious, unobserved (and often
unobservable) underlying assumptions. Basically an incoherent mess which could make no useful predictions (and in case a prediction failed, they would rather modify their theory than discard it, or simply deny reality). They never challenged their underlying assumptions (e.g. why four elements? Why those particular four? How would you demonstrate that this is the case?)
In short, they lacked the scientific method, and with it, the ability to make any kind of predictions about reality.
They did discover things, but that was essentially through random trial-and-error. Not because of their underlying theories, which were nonsense. Nothing remains of alchemical theory.
For example today general relativity suggests FTL travel is not possible. But if we see an alien vessel that has that technology, we would know it is possible and will being doing all sort of crazy things trying to accomplish it.
Well first it's Special Relativity that predicts that's impossible. Second, that's wrong. if we made a reliable observation showing FTL travel was possible, then all that would tell us is that there is an apparent way around it. That might not invalidate SR at all (depending on how the FTL occured), or it would imply that SR is not exact and the 'final' theory of that matter. Thing is, I don't think anyone believes our current theories of physics are the final theories. However that does
not change the fact that SR correctly explains and predicts an enormous set of things. In other words, whatever replaces SR must still reproduce SR in a large set of known circumstances. So SR is not going to be thrown out, because it's still valid for them.
Much the same way Newtonian physics has not been thrown out simply because it does not accurately predict the behavior of subatomic particles and things moving at relativistic speeds.
So any theory which is to replace SR but allow for FTL travel, must be able reproduce all the predictions that SR has correctly made. And to be testable, it must make some additional ones. This is a very difficult thing to do, but there's nothing stopping anyone from trying at the moment. All an observation of FTL travel would do, is imply that such a theory is possible. But it's not the fact that people don't believe in the possibility which is hindering such a theory - in fact, theoretical physicists study all kinds of impossible theories all the time (for 2-dimensional universes or whatever). It's simply the fact that it's
difficult.
The Antikythera device is simply an example science is not going strictly one direction, there are times of advancement and recession, and the Baghdad battery is another example of this.
Those are not examples of science - they did not have Science. They had trial-and-error. The current age of mankind is profoundly different, because unlike the past, not only do we know things not known before, we know
why we know things we did not know before. We know how to systematically arrive at these results.
No one has even explained how primitive people were able to transport 800 ton blocks thousands of years ago, but they did it, that's a fact, and it is an accomplishment that will be even challenging for our own civilization.
This is not a great mystery. We've shown many plausible methods of transporting heavy blocks with contemporary technology. We will never know for
certain how they did it, but not because there's no conceivable method of doing so, but simply because we don't have sufficient information to ever determine which one was used.
Alchemists knew there were possibilities and were trying to explore them, and in order to have support they have often lied to rich people they are trying to turn ordinary metals into gold.
What's your evidence that alchemists did not believe themselves that transmutation was possible? They had no reason to believe it was impossible. On the other hand, nor did they have a (credible) reason to believe it was possible. Which is why alchemy is not a science.
Science does not start with an ad-hoc desired end and try to find a way to achieve it. (which you seem to imply with the FTL example) Science starts with either a theory making a testable prediction, or an empirical observation in need of a theory. It is disciplined adherence to this which is at the center of a scientific mindset. The farther one deviates from this, the more one ends up with bad science, pseudoscience and ultimately, alchemy.
