(E: never mind that, as has already been suggested to you, the theoretical thought experiment in question specifies not only infinite monkeys, but infinite time too, so they’ve not stuck to either parameter)

Whoah, whoah, whoah… Big critical thinker here thinks the paper is about disproving a thought experiment?

You understand that this is impossible? Even if it were attempted, such a venture is more a philosophical one, not a mathematicians forte.

Obviously the paper is not looking at that, it’s doing math

“Yes, it is true that given infinite resources, any text of any length would inevitably be produced eventually. While true, this also has no relevance to our own universe, as ‘reaching infinity’ in resources is not something which can ever happen.”

That needing to be pointed out to you is… Well you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t waste my energy “critically thinking” yet 👍

looks at pot plant

😠

They said they believe.

Only knowledge has sources; but beliefs sound cool.

I don’t know why I used a semicolon there, but it’s staying.

the time it would take for a typing monkey to replicate Shakespeare’s plays, sonnets and poems would be longer than the lifespan of our universe.

Which means that while mathematically true, the theorem is “misleading”, they said.

Gotta read the articles 👍

No, it’s definitely hacking because that makes me a hacker with my friends sports TV subscription 👨‍💻😎

They do this with Early Access and people still lose their shit about empty content and unfinished graphics in a game they paid $10 for.

When people make me play Monopoly, I always take the housing shortage strategy for the guaranteed fast win. People hate me, but rules are rules, and I hate that game.

He’s probably earned enough to keep the farm afloat for another 12 months or so.

Without looking into the actual stats, it’s so incredibly common it’s normal. There are pedantic pros and cons to both; it’s trivial. But more people have a second toe shorter than the first.

Please, Yuki, don’t Tsuonda this chance. Think of your Gasly training.

Call me pretentious, but I genuinely forget about Facebook and that lots of people still care about it.

And this is why you don’t get invited into other people’s showers.

In this context, you use the term “belief” very well.

This post is discussing the phenomenon of people thinking that science is objective and rigid when in reality it is anything but.

It’s not though. That’s all you.

The irony of such a statement…

I don’t want to deflate your assumption, but “Science is pure objectivity and truth”.

The assumption you introduced just added another layer on by bringing Marxism into it. And here’s the thing with that fallacy; you may be very right! But, it’s got nothing to do with the original statement anymore. It’s just going down tangents of a tangent that should be explored under their own initiative, not the blanket of “science”.

It’s not literal; as the fallacy credits, neither is it necessarily wrong. But(!!!), they’re just not related.

The entire post itself—and your reply—is social science. But science is incapable of alignment to any -ism. All isms are human-made. If they are 100% true, they are not isms.

Edit: Sorry, I’m drunk af, so probably you are right…maybe… At least in my mind, I’m just reading Statement B as literally as Statement A and therefore can’t see correlation without social agenda—theyre just two very different things. Science and agenda; or agenda using “science”. It’s bias. That’s very unscientific.

This is a clean example of an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

Statement B attempts to use Statement A to make an unrelated point that isn’t necessarily untrue, but it is still unrelated.

This could be done with any combination of…

“Under capitalism, <random thing> is…”
“Under <random ism>, science is…”

They would all result in a statement that supports Speaker B, but is no longer relevant to what Speaker A stated, as the topic has changed. In this case, from science to capitalism.

I.e. It’s an anti-capitalism meme attempting to use science to appeal to a broader audience through relevance fallacy. Both statements may be true, but do not belong in the same picture.

Unless, of course, “that’s the joke” and I’m just that dumb.

Edit: I’m not a supporter of capitalism. But I am a supporter of science—haha, like it needs me to exist—and this is an interesting example of social science. It seems personal opinion is paramount to some individuals rather than unbiased assessment of the statement as a whole. Call me boring and autistic, but that’s what science be and anything else isn’t science, it’s just personal opinion, belief, theory, etc.

I hear lyrebirds in Australia mimic what sounds like human noises sometimes and it’s weird.

It’s rare and isn’t as “spot on” as documentaries make it out to be, but when it happens it’s always been when rock climbing in an area for most of the day and sometimes one comes along. They seem to pick up on the noises hikers and climbers make in those areas, which is mostly talking, laughing, cheering, etc. But like, it sounds nothing like another human, but you know that’s what it’s heard because it sounds like humans in the distance, just 10-20m away. Then they mix in random bird calls and it’s fun to guess each bird it’s trying to be.

It’s kind of surreal; certainly interesting. Terrible distraction when you’re supposed to be belaying someone who’s halfway up a cliff 🤣

I’d be surprised if it lasted longer than any other socially progressive trend. A few weeks, tops, with largest proportions falling off in the first week.

This is the reality of social momentum these days. Resistance is no threat because it has extremely brief lifespan before moving onto the next thing to be a part of.

That’s exactly how it felt. Like her imagination had daydreamed the scene long enough, it was time to put it out to the universe and be approached by all those agents and producers crammed in the commuter carriage of the inner south line.