164
Koko vindicated by the Epstein revelations (hexbear.net)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 102 points 9 months ago (11 children)

Noam Chomsky was highly skeptical and dismissive of the supposed linguistic abilities of "talking" apes like Nim Chimpsky and Koko the Gorilla. It has been known for a while that Chomsky also associated with Jeffrey Epstein, even after Epstein's initial convictions. Recently, photos have been released showing Noam with Jeffrey Epstein, and meeting with Steve Bannon with Epstein as an intermediary. The pictured post jokingly posits that the reason for Noam's public dismissal of Koko's supposed abilities is that Koko knew that he was a pedophile Epstein associate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] 57 points 9 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 9 months ago* (8 children)

    While Norm did spark the initial debates that formed linguistics as a study, pretty much all of his ideas and theories in the field have been thoroughly discredited. He basically was so incorrect that people formed an entire academic discipline to prove him wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, the "universal grammar" aspect seems to have fallen apart. Other parts of his theory about humans being the only animal to demonstrate grammar still hold true. It's not been demonstrated yet in any nonhuman animal (unfortunately, yes, even Koko).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    idk theres promising research on linguistic cadence of many whale species. my personal opinion is that they are sapient to some degree, they even have been shown to adapt to really complex new stressors in the environment caused by us very fast, and have demonstrated cultural memories and sharing of information. i also kinda feel like most apes are sapient in some fashion, like yeah maybe as smart as an 8 year old or something but terrible at communication which limits them severely

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    i dont disagree with any of that im just pointing out that the very specific criteria being used for using language arent met so far as we understand it yet by any nonhuman. i do think there is more promise in whales in and other related animals but we dont have the data yet to really fully confirm it. i think that may happen in our lifetime

    i also am open to the possibility that both chomsky and his critics are right at the same time... that there is something unique about human beings and the way we use language and grammar and that animals like whales turn out to have a complex grammar (like fully formed language) of their own but it is entirely inhuman.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    We can all hate Chomsky, and should, but saying his linguistics has been discredited it absurd. This sounds like saying "Marx was so wrong that an entire field of political economy had to develop to prove all that he got wrong." (I used Marx as a common point we all have, not to argue equivalent value between the contributions) He caused a significantly large shift in thinking which caused the field to develop further than his initial thesis, sure. I think several of his claims have been shown to be "too strong" but that's very different from just being horribly wrong.

    I've argued it here before, most people really misunderstand the value of the "universal grammar" argument. And I think often attribute a much stronger claim to Chomsky than he was making. It's useful to think of humans as predisposed to certain rational/logical connections between the experiences they have at a very young age. And language has that logic built in at some deep level as universal ways that concept connect. It was just a shift from linguistics as descriptive to something which could make wider predictions. Often wrong, but it's developing like any other science.

    Attack Chomsky for being a pedophile and/or pedophile supporter. Attacking his linguistics only makes us seem clueless.

    Also attack Chomsky because he's a chauvinist unwilling to consider contribution by non-stereotypical-academics to revolutionary theories.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •