In 2008, Ernesto Paparazzo, in his “Why Take Chemistry Stoically?”, argued that some of the ideology of Posidonius’ logic, e.g. his “generation and destruction”, form a sort of proto-science of chemistry, as being forerunners to chemical elements, chemical species, nuclear reactions, conservation of mass, and chemical change at solid surfaces; the following is a representative quote: [1]
“Posidonius says that there are four kinds of destruction and generation that occur from what is to what is. For they [i.e. the Stoics] rejected as unreal any destruction from or generation into what is not...Of change into what is, he distinguishes: (a) dismemberment [diairesis]; (b) transmutation [alloiôsis]; (c) fusion [sugkhusis]; (d) breaking up of a whole, called dissolution [analusis]. Of these four, transmutation is related to substance (ousia); the other three have reference to qualities supervening on substance. Generation is analogous to that. Substance does not admit of increase or diminution by addition or subtraction, but only of transmutation, like number and measure. But individually qualified particulars like Dion and Theon [two stock names in Stoic logic (Kidd 1988a, p. 385)], also admit of increase and diminution. This is also why the predominant quality of each thing persists from generation to destruction, as in the case of animals, plants and things like them which admit destruction. In individually qualified particulars, he says, there are two receptive parts, in respect to the reality of substance and of quality. It is the latter, as we have often kept saying, that admits of increase and diminution. The individually qualified particular is not the same as its constituent substance, nor is it different either; but is all but the same in that its substance is a part of it and occupies the same space. For things that are said to be different from others must both be spatially separate and not viewed as part and whole.”
— Ian Kidd (1972), Posidonius: Volume Three, The Translation of the Fragments [2]
(add)