You just aren't getting it are you. In 1700, alchemy wasn't "speculative and whimsical", it was mainstream and conventional.

Oh, I get it all right, pillock. I don't give a damn whether it was "mainstream and conventional" (what the hell has that silly notion got to do with anything!). The point is that is he was, in promoting alchemy and God, being singularly unscientific, and those unfortunate notions were being espoused by a man who, in his better endeavours, was rigorously scientific. Basically, he was going off on one. You are excusing the inexcusable. But he was still a great scientist. But only when he was doing science. Einstein was a great scientist too. But not when he was playing the fiddle.