• oo1@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    I think their research is empirically falsified already. If chimp = monkey, then “simian” is reasonable generalisation of “monkey” - also that reflects a lot of real english speakers usage of the words.

    A less than infinite number of simians have already done it once.

    Not to mention that I think they’re assuming no evolution. Fucking chriatian fundamentalists.

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      Not to mention that I think they’re assuming no evolution. Fucking chriatian fundamentalists.

      Wut.

    • Semperverus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      I’m not christian and I assumed the experiment didn’t allow for evolution as it was not specified in its parameters. I assumed that the monkeys were a horrible (and very wrong) analogy for random number generators, were immortal, and had no time for making offspring as they were all trained and consumed with typewriting, or physically separated from one another.

      The monkeys would produce wildly more limited results than a random number generator mind you, and they are essentially frozen in evolutionary time, so they are not going to be writing shakespear.

    • futatorius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      A less than infinite number of simians have already done it once.

      And how likely is it that it’ll be done again identically by a finite set of simians?