> In 100 years, this was the shift. Chemistry, as something that one did, was relegated to more advanced courses. You would no longer be able to do chemistry by

> In 100 years, this was the shift. Chemistry, as something that one did, was relegated to more advanced courses. You would no longer be able to do chemistry by taking an intro course alone. > The regress, then, would come in disregarding the empirical evidence entirely, and transforming chemistry entirely into something that one learned, rather than did. The author makes some good points. There are also some interesting connections to software. The way many kids today learn how to write software today is by doing and using first, and only later learning what they're doing. That's possible thanks to the relentless compound effect of Moore's Law operating over six decades or so. It doesn't work that way in chemistry. Chemistry kits used to be commonplace up until the 70s. Various chemicals (such as acetone, concentrated isopropanol, and even certain drugs) used to be commonly available over the counter without hassle. Safety concerns have obliterated that pathway. There has been no Moore's Law making chemistry safer, cleaner, or more engaging over the last 60 years. So the path to professional chemist (or even enthusiastic amateur) is completely different from the path to professional programmer. Oddly enough, I see YouTube starting to re-kindle the idea that you can do amazing things at home with some ordinary materials and a little know-how. No, you don't have to read the whole damn book and take all the tests before showing off. Tinkering with powerful things you're not qualified to use is incredibly addictive.