Abstract
Theoretical commentaries on AI often operate as a metadiscourse on the way in which science represents itself to a wider public. The sciences and humanities do the same kind of work but in different fields that encourage them to talk about their work differently: science refers to a natural world that does not talk back, and the humanities refer continually to a world with communicative people in it. This paper suggests that much AI commentary is misconceived because it models itself on the way that science represents itself, rather than on the actual practice of science.
AI theorists have become increasingly worried about the lack of evaluation in AI, the lack of reflexivity, and the lack of contact with society. Frequently these writers turn to concepts of tacit knowledge to work through these worries. In doing so they are recognising the problem of AI's second-order representation of science and trying to deal with it. However, this recognition of a problem with the representations of science simply turns back to the legitimation crisis of Western politics where many commentators use science precisely as a ‘model’ for western political institutions. They do so because science is one of the few areas of knowledge where it has been legitimate to use plausible methodology for representation that allows for arbitrary designations of authority as well as parallel systems of different authority. However, the plausible rejects any control on reflexivity, assumes an ethnocentric club culture and does not address social context.
It is in this sense that the problems of legitimation in political liberalism are similar to those of legitimation in sciences, both are rooted in their uses of representation. AI's link with the representation of science places it in the heart of this debate about legitimacy. This paper suggests that AI does need to learn about reflexivity and that it might well do so by looking at the recent work on experimentation and representation by historians of science, and by looking to the debates about representation by historians of science, and by looking to the debates about representation within the humanities. However, reflexivity may not be enough. Devising rules of thumb for the appropriate halting of reflexivity, is also needed to address social context and take action.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aleksander, L. (1989). Connectionist systems: Information technology goes brain-like (again!). In Murray and Richardson
Austin, J. (1962).How to do things with words. Clarendon Press. Oxford.
Bauman, Z. (1989).Modernity and ambivalence. Polity.
Bauman, Z. (1992).Intimations of postmodernity. Routledge. London.
Beetham, D. (1991)The legitimation of power. Macmillan. London.
Benjamin, A., Cantor, G., and Christie, J. (1987).The figural and the literal: Problems of language in the history of science and philosophy, 1630–1800. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Bergendahl, G. (1990) Profession skill and traditions of knowledge. In Göranzon and Florin.
Bernstein, R. J. (ed.) (1985).Habermas and modernity. Polity.
Bhabha, H. (198X). Interogating identity.Identity Documents, 6.
Birnbaum, L. (1991). Rigor mortis: a response to Nilsson's ‘logic and artificial intelligence.Artificial Intelligence,47.
Boden, M. (1989). Artificial Intelligence: opportunities and dangers. In Murray and Richardson.
Boden, M. (1989). The meeting of man and machine. In Murray and Richardson
Boden, M. (1990) Aritificial intelligence and images of man. In Ennals and Gardin.
Brooks, R. (1991). Intelligence without representation.Aritificial Intelligence,47.
Cantor, G. (1989) The rhetoric of experiment. In Gooding et al.
Cave, T. (1988).Recognition: a study in poetics. Clarendon Press. Oxford.
Charolles, M. (1990) Logicist analysis and discourse analysis. In Ennals and Gardin.
Christensen, K. (1986). Technological decisions are moral decisions. In Geiss and Viswanathan.
Cixous, H. (1988)‘Coming to writing’ and other essays. D Jenson (ed). translation S Cornall. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.
Clancey, W. (1992). Model reconstruction operators.Artificial Intelligence,56.
Clancey, W. (1993). Notes on ‘heuristic classification’.Artificial Intelligence.59.
Connerton, P. (1989).How societies remember. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Cooley, M. (197X).Architect or bee? The Human/technology relationship. S. Cooley (ed.). Hand and Brain Publications. Slough.
Cooley, M. (1987). Creativity, skill and human-centred systems. In Göranzon and Josefson.
Dear, P. (ed.) (1991).The literary structure of scientific argument. University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia.
Doran, J. (1989). Distributed artificial intelligence and the modelling of socio-cultural systems. In Murray and Richardson.
Dreyfus, H. (1988). The Socratic and Platonic basis of cognitivism.AI & Society,2. 107.
Ennals, R. (1990). Interpretation and code-breaking. In Ennals and Gardin.
Ennals, R. (1991).Artificial intelligence and human institutions. Springer-Verlag. London.
Ennals, R. and Gardin J.C. (eds.) (1990) Interpretation in the humanities: perspectives from artificial intelligence.Library and Information Research Report 71. British Library.
Fargue, J. (1990). Remarks on the interrelations between artificial intelligence, mathematical logic and humanities. In Ennals and Gardin.
Feyerabend, J. (1975). Against Method. Verson, 1988.
Foucault, M. (1976).Language, counter-memory practice. Cornell University Press. Ithaca.
Frude, N. (1989). Intelligent systems off the shelf: the high street consumer and artificial intelligence. In Murray and Richardson.
Gadamer, H-G. (1976).Reason in the age of science. Translated by F G Lawrence, MIT Press, 1981, London.
Gardin, J-C. (1990). Interpretation in the humanities: some thoughts on the third way. In Ennals and Gardin.
Geiss, G. and Viswanathan, N. (1986)The human edge: information technology and helping people. The Hawthorn Press. New York.
Gellner, E. (1982). Nationalism and the two forms of cohesion in complex societies. In Proc British Academy LXVIII. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Gill, K.S. (1987). Artificial intelligence and social action: education and training. In Göranzon and Josefson.
Golisnki, J. (1990). The theory of practice and the practice of theory: sociological approaches in the history of science.Isis,81.
Golinski, J. (1992).Science and public culture. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Gooding, D., Pinch, T. and Schaffer, S. (eds.) (1989).The uses of experiment: studies in the natural sciences. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Göranzon, B and Florin, M. (eds.) (1987).Knowledge, skill and artificial intelligence. Springer-Verlag. London.
Göranzon, B and Florin, M. (eds.) (1990).Artificial intelligence, culture and language: on education and work. Springer-Verlag. London.
Greene, J. (1987).Memory, thinking and language. Methuen. London.
Habermas, J. (1971).Theory and practice. Translation J Viertel. Beacon Press, 1973. Boston.
Habermas, J. (1985). Reply to Rorty. In Bernstein.
Habermas, J. (1987).The philosophical discourse of modernity. Polity.
Hunter, L. (1984).Rhetorical stance in modern literature. MacMillan. London.
Hunter, L. (1989).Modern allegory and fantasy. MacMillan. London.
Hunter, L. (1990). Fact-information-data-knowledge: databases as a way of organizing knowledge.Journal of Literary and Linguistic Computing.5. 1.
Hunter, L. (1991a). McLuhan's From choice to archetype. In L Hunter, 1991.
Hunter, L. (1991b). Remember Frankenstein: rhetoric and artificial intelligence.Rhetorica,XI, 4.
Hunter, L. (ed.) (1991).Toward a definition for topos: essays on analogical reasoning. MacMillan. London.
Hunter, L. (1992). Social contexts for methodology. Paper presented to the International Society for Literary and Linguistic Computing. Oxford University, (forthcoming printed version).
Jacob, P. (1990). What is interpretation?: a philosophocal view. In Ennals and Gardin.
Jameson, F. (1984). Foreword. In Lyotard, 1979.
Janik, A. (1987). Tacit knowledge, working life and scientific ‘method’. In Göranzon and Josefson.
Johannesson, K.S. (1990). Rule following and intrasitive understanding. In Göranzon and Florin.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1989). Human experts and expert systems. In Murray and Richardson.
Kirsh, D. (1991a). Foundations of AI: the big issues.Artificial Intelligence,47.
Kirsh, D. (1991b). Today the earwig, tomorrow man?Artificial Intelligence,47.
Lacan, J. (1979).Ecrits. Translated by A Sheridan. Tavistock. London.
Lyotard, J. (1979).The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. Translated by G Bennington and B Massumi. Manchester University Press. Manchester (1986).
Mcdonnel, D. (1986).Theories of discourse. Basil Blackwell. Oxford.
Medawar, P. (1964). Is the scientific paper a fraud? Saturday Review, August 1st.
Miall, D. (1990). An expert system approach to the interpretation of literary structure. In Ennals and Gardin.
Miles, I, Rush, J, Turner, K, and Bessant, J. (1988).Information horizons: the long-term social implications of new information technologies. Edward Elgar. Aldershot.
Molina, A. (1989).The social basis of the microelectronics revolution. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh.
Murray, I. and Richardson, J. (eds.) (1989).Intelligent systems in a human context: development, implications and applications. Oxford University Press. London.
Nordenstam, T. (1990). Language and action. In Göranzon and Florin.
Ostberg, G. (1990). How to make materials data systems useful for designers. In Göranzon and Florin.
Penrose, R. (1989).The Emperor's new mind: concerning computers, minds and the laws of physics. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Polanyi, M. (1967).The tacit dimension. Routledge and Kegan Paul. London.
Pravitz, D. (19XX). Tacit knowledge — an impediment for AI? In Göranzon and Florin.
Rorty, R. (1985). Habermas and Lyotard on postmodernity. In Bernstein.
Rorty, R. (1989).Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rorty, R. (1991a).Objectivity, relativism, and truth. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Rorty, R. (1991b).Essays on Heidegger and others. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Rose, H. and Rose, S. (eds.) (1976).The political economy of science. MacMillan. London.
Rose, S. (1973). Can science be neutral?Proc Royal Institute,45.
Rotblat, J. (ed.) (1982).Scientists, the arms race and disarmament. Taylor and Francis. London.
Rouse, J. (1987).Knowledge and power: toward a political philosophy of science. Cornell University Press. London.
Rowe, W. and Schelling, V. (1991).Memory and modernity. Verso. London.
Searle, J. R. (1990). Cognitive science and the computer metaphor. In Göranzon and Florin.
Shapin, S. (1988). The house of experiment.Isis,79.
Sloman, A. (1992). The Emperor's new mind.Artificial Intelligence,56.
Smith, B. (1991). The owl and the electric encyclopedia.Artificial Intelligence,47.
Stockinger, P. (1990). Logicist analysis and conceptual inferences. In Ennals and Gardin.
Tilghman, B. R. (1990). Seeing and seeing as. In Göranzon and Florin.
Wagman, M. (1991).Artificial Intelligence and human cognition: A theoretical intercomparison of two realms of intellect. Preager. London.
Wilcock, J. (1990). A critique of expert systems, and their past and present use in archaeology. In Ennals and Gardin.
Williams, R. (1987). Paper presented at the Linguistics and Literature Conference, Strathclyde University.
Winograd, T. and Flores, F. (1986).Understanding computers and cognition. A new foundation for design. Addison Wesley. Norwood. NJ.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953).Philosphical investigations. Translated by G Anscombe. Basil Blackwell. Oxford (1967).
Woolgar, S. (1989). Why not a sociology of machines? An evaluation of prospects for an association between sociology and artificial intelligence. In Murray and Richardson.
Woolgar, S. (1991). The turn to technology in social studies of science.Science, Technology and Human Values,16 (1).
Young, R. M. (1989) Human interface aspects of expert systems. In Murray and Richardson.
Ziman, J. (1982). Basic Principles. In Rotblat.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hunter, L.A.C. AI and representation: A study of a rhetorical context for legitimacy. AI & Soc 7, 185–207 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01901816
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01901816