Philosophy is fake news

By its textbook definition, I reiterate that a pencil "[consists] of a thin stick of graphite or a similar substance enclosed in a long thin piece of wood or fixed in a metal or plastic case". So it's two pencils, but taped together, not one.

>'nuff said
I, too, hold that hydrochloric acid, gold leaf, and gunpowder are all worthless innovations.

Just change the tape to a metal or plastic case. Or alternatively, stab the first pencil into the eraser of the second pencil until the two graphite sticks touch. My point is that trying to define math based on what's useful rather than what's logical is going to create inconsistencies. Because even though my double-pencil is only useful as a single pencil, it's still logically two separate pencils in union.

Even if you could claim those under the wing of alchemy, and not chemistry(you can't), that doesn't validate everything alchemy does. Like transmutation, or the fucking philosopher's stone. We now use more rigorous and proven scientific methodologies in chemistry that ignore most, if not all, of classical alchemy and its list of inventions would fill a textbook.

Wish hiro moot deletes /pol/

Whether you choose to define your freak of nature pencil centipede as one or two doesn't matter. Whether Webster's dictionary or anyone will define it as one or two is arbitrary and ultimately an irrelevant discussion. We just need to call it something.

>1+1=2
>But I can shove 1 into another 1 without making it 2 (as long as I find a valid use for it)
This is math without logic

They are fundamentally the same thing.
Those innovations were made by people who referred to themselves as alchemists, at a time when alchemy and chemistry were still synonymous.

Do you not consider Aristotle's "On Coming to Be and Passing Away" to be a treatise on physics?
Read that shit some time, it totally is.

embarrassing thread

You sound beyond retarded. Plus all of the reasoning you use is itself philosophy.