?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
22 August 2004 @ 01:41 pm
Alchemy Help  
For some reason, I decided to a persuasive speech on Alchemy for my Public Speaking class. Unfortunately, I have no idea what to persuade about. Any ideas? Please? Also, I remember there are 3 stages Edward Elric once mentioned of Alchemy. Scar did the decomposition, what are the other two?
 
 
Current Mood: chipperchipper
 
 
Adaadalove on August 21st, 2004 10:46 pm (UTC)
I'm braindead on ideas for possible topics at the moment, but I do remember the stages: comprehension, decomposition, and reassembly. Good luck! ^^
xiao_xiao on August 21st, 2004 10:47 pm (UTC)
thanks! i just hope they'll be interested!
Hikikomorithe_hikikomori on August 21st, 2004 10:53 pm (UTC)
Understanding, decomposing, and reassembling (Episode 15)
Alymother on August 21st, 2004 10:57 pm (UTC)
Just look up some alchemy sites on the web. Though, a lot of them are just hard to comprehend -lots of psycho babble.
Ananomoreprinces on August 22nd, 2004 02:08 am (UTC)
alchemy vs human cloning, pros/cons/parallels.
anax imperatoranax on August 22nd, 2004 05:53 am (UTC)
Persuade people that real science is self-correcting, and use alchemy as an example. Alchemy was once considered a real science, and in a way it was ... it was the first field to use experimentation and observation. Previous to that, the usual way of "learning about the world" was to sit and think philosophically about it, which led to such amusing errors as the belief that women have fewer teeth than men. An alchemist would have actually gone and counted teeth instead of just pulling this out of his brain.

Because the basic premise of alchemy was flawed, it was eventually given up in favor of chemistry, and now it gets a lot of bad press. Hah hah, those crazy alchemists, trying to brew the Elixir of Life! But they weren't as stupid as some people make out. Persuade your class of this. :)
mikkeneko on August 22nd, 2004 10:02 am (UTC)
Hmm, well, you could talk about the philosophy that goes behind it; how the search for the Philosopher's Stone isn't just a matter of greedily wanting gold, it's also considered a religious act. Or the way that the metals 'want' to go through all the natural stages, lead, iron, tin, copper, silver, and mercury, before they finally reach the highest stage, gold, which is also representative of the sun and of God; and that it's considered the job of alchemists to 'help' metals along on that transition. Then of course there's the bit about how the transformation of the alchemist has to accompany the transformation of the metals; the alchemist purifies himself as he purifies the metals, and if he's not pure enough of heart, he'll never be able to create gold.

Of course, it was this last more than anything else that held alchemy back as a science, since it had no basis for falsification nor of empirical testing. But for a long time, alchemy *was* what there was of science; it was the necessary precursor, and it lent ascientific view to the world -- that the world operated by a pre-existing and immutable set of rules and that man could change the world according to these rules instead of simply accepting everything as being the way God made it. :)