The term chemistry comes from the reference to the land of Chem (early Egypt. Africa). A direct translation of the word chemistry would mean "The Black Art" which is how most chemists, in their denial, refer to magick and alchemy.
The separation of alchemy from chemistry became almost complete by the time of the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It still had minor references to alchemy (a definition of Aether was included which would be looked at with horror today). By the time of Maxwell, alchemy was considered to be disproved by atomic theory (the ancient Greek idea). Everything was made of atoms instead of everything being reducible to the five elements. This marked the departure of alchemic art from scientific chemistry. Art no longer plays a role in chemistry or science and neither does the person is observing the experiment. This is precisely why science lost its way. It's not so much that scientists are godless, thought many are, it's that it no longer matters:
So science is no longer an art as alchemy was. It no longer takes a master of the lab (although it should) but merely technicians to perform experiments. This is like performing experiments by proxy or worse, by committee.
Artists, painters, sculptors, musicians follow their own science and yet, their products can't be considered simply math. This was the parting of the ways in order to obtain scientific repeatability. It matters who does the painting and who finishes it. It matters who does the experiment and who finishes it in order to achieve true gnosis in any given situation. This is probably why we have the finding in atomic physics that observation of an experiment changes the result. If a Maxwell or Bohr or Daylton work in the lab, it is as important as if a Titan or Van Goth or De Vinchi work in the studio to the results.
Also note: fraud did not end with the advent of the scientific method. In one instance recently a single researcher was exposed to have falsified over 50 key studies. In another case lab rats with genetic deficits were used in hundreds of studies, invalidating key research, already in the textbooks, by the time the discovery was made. It should be per proverbial that:
One independent study rated the FBI labs at a 50% accuracy rate. Does "political correctness" allow for the dismissal of the evidence?
No one seems to include research (no matter how good the execution in the lab or well designed the study) by tobacco companies in today's politically charged debates on whether tobacco causes cancer or whether it's really caused by the dire "warnings" on each pack. How many people die each year because "der doctor says" etc. ad nausium. It seems that science still has its "witches" to burn for whatever reasons, just like the inquisitors "scientific" methods in the dark ages.