VitorMSAlmeida.pt

The relationship between occultism and the scientific method is historical, complex, and dialectical: it is not a simple opposition, but a gradual transition with mutual influences, especially in the early days of modern science.

Historical Roots: From the Occult to the Empirical
Occultism (alchemy, hermeticism, natural magic, astrology) sought “hidden” knowledge of nature, often blending experimentation, symbolism, philosophy, and spiritual/transcendent aspirations. Many practitioners saw the laboratory as a space for divine or cosmic revelation.
Alchemy was one of the most important “occult sciences.” It involved practical experiments (distillation, calcination, sublimation) in the search for the Philosopher’s Stone, transmutation of metals, and the elixir of life. These processes generated technical knowledge that fueled modern chemistry.

Central figures of the Scientific Revolution (16th-17th centuries) mixed approaches: Isaac Newton dedicated more time to alchemy and theology than to physics (he was called “the last of the magicians”). Robert Boyle, the father of modern chemistry, also practiced alchemy. Johannes Kepler and others had connections with Hermeticism and astrology.
Historians such as Frances Yates (thesis of Hermetic influence) and William Newman highlight that experimentalism and the emphasis on manipulating nature (the idea of ​​the “magician” as operator) contributed to the emergence of the scientific method. Alchemy helped break with Aristotelian matter and promoted the corpuscular (particle) view.

Transition to the scientific method
The modern scientific method (systematic observation, controlled experimentation, hypothesis, falsifiability, reproducibility, and mathematization) gradually consolidated, especially with Francis Bacon, Galileo, Boyle, and Newton. It prioritizes what is testable, public, and independent of mystical revelation.

There was continuity, not an abrupt break: alchemists used repeated experiments, but with symbolic language and spiritual goals. Modern science “purified” this, rejecting the ineffable and focusing on explainable natural causes.

In the 18th-19th centuries, a clearer separation occurred: occultism was marginalized as pseudoscience, while chemistry, astronomy, and physics became professionalized.

Occultism “using” science (19th century to the present)
Movements such as mesmerism, spiritualism, theosophy, and modern occultism attempted to legitimize themselves with scientific language: They used “experimental methods” in séances, clairvoyance, or “occult chemistry.”
They claimed that science was incomplete and that occultism complemented or transcended it (e.g., quantum physics interpreted mystically).
The same occurs in the scientific field with the inclusion of theories (not yet experimental) that integrate this knowledge.

This generated the phenomenon of occult scientism—the selective appropriation of scientific concepts to validate beliefs. Science, in turn, investigated “occult” phenomena (e.g., commissions on animal magnetism led to control and placebo methods).

Fundamental Differences
> Occultism / Esotericism
– Revelation, intuition, symbolism, gnosis
– Subjective or initiatory experience
– Spiritual transformation + occult knowledge
– Often secret or allegorical
> Scientific Method
– Empirical observation + reason
– Falsifiability and reproducibility
– Natural, predictable, and testable explanation
– Public, transparent, reviewed

The scientific method does not deny the mystery of existence, but it demands rigorous evidence. Many scientists (past and present) maintain personal mystical views without mixing them with professional work.

Example:
The existence of entities (such as Maria Padilha of the Souls) in personal and occult terms can be “felt,” interacting with them guarantees their existence. However, in scientific terms (impersonal, empirical, and instrumentally measurable), the same is not possible (at least not at the moment).
This type of “incompatibility” has always occurred, resulting (mainly due to technological evolution) in the integration of the occult into a new scientific area or theory, primarily due to the prior existence of organized knowledge (albeit individual and subjective).

Conclusion
Occultism was an important cradle of experimental science—it provided laboratory practices, motivation, and questioning about matter and invisible forces. Over time, the scientific method differentiated itself by prioritizing rigor, organized skepticism, and the rejection of untestable explanations. Today, they are seen as distinct ways of knowing the world: one more internal/transcendent, the other public and cumulative.
The tension between them continues to inspire debates about the limits of science and the nature of reality. This relationship shows that the history of science is not linear or “pure,” but intertwined with the human search for meaning and knowledge.

Additional note:
It has been verified that there is much less incompatibility between the scientific method and occultism than with the so-called “human sciences,” mainly because occultism does not attempt to appropriate the name of science to gain notoriety and credibility, unlike what happens with these “sciences”; on the other hand, it is the only method that allows, due to its rigor and positivism, individual theories and observations to become universal, demonstrable, and repeatable.