Ok I think I will try to voice my understanding of the argument in this thread because many of those debating actually sound reasonable and are not trying to argue for the sake of it.
This debate has a classic fallacy premise that I will try to describe to the best of my abilities. The fallacy is the question itself. What does alchemy belong to more, Stealth or Magic? Now we should clearly define what role each term plays in the argument. Stealth is hardly worth mentioning but to be thorough:
Stealth (
as defined in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary):
1
a archaic : theft
b obsolete : something stolen
2
: the act or action of proceeding furtively, secretly, or imperceptibly
3
: the state of being furtive or unobtrusive
4
: an aircraft-design characteristic consisting of oblique angular construction and avoidance of vertical surfaces that is intended to produce a very weak radar return
And the much more relative and subjective to context term magic:
Magic (
as defined in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary):
1
a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces
b : magic rites or incantations
2
a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source
b : something that seems to cast a spell : enchantment
3
: the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand
I will throw in a brief summary of the etymology of magic because I feel the brevity of the definition above doesn't really convey the totality of the word:
late 14c., "art of influencing events and producing marvels," from O.Fr. magique, from L. magice "sorcery, magic," from Gk. magike (presumably with tekhne "art"), fem. of magikos "magical," from magos "one of the members of the learned and priestly class," from O.Pers. magush, possibly from PIE *magh- "to be able, to have power" (see machine). Displaced O.E. wiccecr?ft (see witch); also drycr?ft, from dry "magician," from Ir. drui "priest, magician" (see druid). Transferred sense of "legerdemain, optical illusion, etc." is from 1811. Magic carpet first attested 1909. Magic Marker (1956) is a reg. trademark (U.S.) by Speedry Products, Inc., Richmond Hill, N.Y. Magic lantern "optical instrument whereby a magnified image is thrown upon a wall or screen" is 1690s, from Mod.L. laterna magica.
You will notice that the word magic and the word machine have similar origins. Now a machine itself might be very "magical" to someone who is not privy to the way it operates. Even better, take somebody who hasn't been exposed to an industrialized nation before (often the best way to describe this is imagine going back in time with a working cell phone or computer) and their perspective of our day to day machines are very magical to them. So magic is subjective to perception.
The term alchemy as described in the wiki article is properly defined as a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience. What this means in layman terms is scientific theory that does not follow a logically orthodox premise. It is easy to think of examples. Let's say that I would like to test whether or not playing major fifths on a piano near someone who is sick will help them to recover. Well, that doesn't sound logical. So the protoscience tests to see whether or not this would take place. In the case of alchemy people wanted metal to be turned into gold. That was their main goal. Sound logical? No, but they were going to test it out by implementing dubious practices like combining ingredients etc.
Here is the etymology of the word:
mid-14c., from O.Fr. alchimie (14c.), alquemie (13c.), from M.L. alkimia, from Arabic al-kimiya, from Gk. khemeioa (found c.300 C.E. in a decree of Diocletian against "the old writings of the Egyptians"), all meaning "alchemy." Perhaps from an old name for Egypt (Khemia, lit. "land of black earth," found in Plutarch), or from Gk. khymatos "that which is poured out," from khein "to pour," related to khymos "juice, sap" [Klein, citing W. Muss-Arnolt, calls this folk etymology]. The word seems to have elements of both origins.
Mahn ... concludes, after an elaborate investigation, that Gr. khymeia was probably the original, being first applied to pharmaceutical chemistry, which was chiefly concerned with juices or infusions of plants; that the pursuits of the Alexandrian alchemists were a subsequent development of chemical study, and that the notoriety of these may have caused the name of the art to be popularly associated with the ancient name of Egypt. [OED]
The al- is the Arabic definite article, "the." The art and the name were adopted by the Arabs from Alexandrians and thence returned to Europe via Spain. Alchemy was the "chemistry" of the Middle Ages and early modern times; since c.1600 the word has been applied distinctively to the pursuit of the transmutation of baser metals into gold, which, along with the search for the universal solvent and the panacea, were the chief occupations of early chemistry.
Now assuming that much of the magic that happens in Tamriel has some kind of source, or some kind of science to it to
somebody meaning that it is comprehensible, than alchemy, being a science first (testing out what ingredients do what) might be magical to some people but not everyone. Just like a machine might be magical to someone, or how the tides of the sea work might be magical to someone it is not magical to everyone. That being the case, whether or not alchemy belongs in the magic definition is subjective to circumstance and perception. By nature it shouldn't, alchemy should have an explanation. This being a game though, you must assume that those explanations for how things are working have not been thoroughly discovered.
So now where does that leave us at? It leaves us with the question of where alchemy belongs, "In Stealth or Magic?". The answer is that the question is flawed because it doesn't really
belong in either. It is almost like saying, "Does alchemy belong in Red or Blue?" Well it belongs in red to some people because that is how they perceive alchemy, as belonging in red. But the question isn't logical, so the answers will be equally illogical.
This is how I understand the argument but feel free to give me a stern rebuttal