skip to main content
research-article

From daguerreotypes to algorithms: machines, expertise, and three forms of objectivity

Published: 28 March 2016 Publication History

Abstract

What claims are made about the objectivity of machines versus that of human experts? Whereas most current debates focus on the growing impact of algorithms in the age of Big Data, I argue here in favor of taking a longer historical perspective on these developments. Drawing on Daston and Galison's analysis of scientific production since the eighteenth century, I show that their distinction among three forms of objectivity ("truth-to-nature," "mechanical objectivity," and "trained judgment") sheds light on existing discussions about algorithmic objectivity and accountability in expert fields.

References

[1]
Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a Cultural, Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon. danah boyd, Kate Crawford. Information, Communication, & Society, 15 (5): 662-679, 2012.
[2]
Objectivity. Lorraine Daston, Peter Galison, Zone Books, 2007.
[3]
From New Deal Institutions to Capital Markets: Commercial Consumer Risk Scores and the Making of Subprime Mortgage Finance. Martha Poon. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34(5): 654-674, 2009.
[4]
Disciplined Doctors: The Electronic Medical Record and Physicians' Changing Relationship to Medical Knowledge. Adam Reich. Social Science & Medicine 74 (7): 1021-28, 2012.
[5]
Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. Wendy N. Espeland, Michael Sauder. American Journal of Sociology 113(1): 1-40, 2007.
[6]
Using Big Data for Legal and Law Enforcement Decisions: Testing the New Tools. Lydia Bennett Moses, Janet Chan. UNSW Law Journal 37(2): 643-678, 2014.
[7]
Toward an ethics of algorithms: Convening, observation, probability, and timeliness. Mike Ananny. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1): 93-117, 2016.
[8]
Governing algorithms : Myth, Mess, and Methods. Malte Ziewitz. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1): 3-16, 2016.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Trained Judgements Artificial Intelligence, Epistemic Tensions and the Production of Scientific ObjectivityScience, Technology, & Human Values10.1177/01622439241262854Online publication date: 31-Jul-2024
  • (2024)COOL IT! The objective racism of carceral technofixesCritical Studies in Media Communication10.1080/15295036.2024.231466741:1(21-35)Online publication date: 20-Feb-2024
  • (2024)Ethical, legal, and social challenges of next-generation sequencing technologies (NGS) in forensic criminal identificationNext Generation Sequencing (NGS) Technology in DNA Analysis10.1016/B978-0-323-99144-5.09001-6(551-569)Online publication date: 2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society
ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society  Volume 46, Issue 1
0March 2016
52 pages

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 28 March 2016
Published in SIGCAS Volume 46, Issue 1

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. algorithms
  2. expertise
  3. history of science
  4. objectivity

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)28
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 23 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Trained Judgements Artificial Intelligence, Epistemic Tensions and the Production of Scientific ObjectivityScience, Technology, & Human Values10.1177/01622439241262854Online publication date: 31-Jul-2024
  • (2024)COOL IT! The objective racism of carceral technofixesCritical Studies in Media Communication10.1080/15295036.2024.231466741:1(21-35)Online publication date: 20-Feb-2024
  • (2024)Ethical, legal, and social challenges of next-generation sequencing technologies (NGS) in forensic criminal identificationNext Generation Sequencing (NGS) Technology in DNA Analysis10.1016/B978-0-323-99144-5.09001-6(551-569)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2022)Contested delegation: Understanding critical public responses to algorithmic decision-making in the UK and AustraliaThe Sociological Review10.1177/00380261221105380(003802612211053)Online publication date: 8-Aug-2022
  • (2022)Negotiating Sociomateriality and Commensurability: Human and Algorithmic Editorial Judgment at Social Media PlatformsJournalism Studies10.1080/1461670X.2021.2024084(1-18)Online publication date: 9-Jan-2022
  • (2022)Big Data applied to criminal investigations: expectations of professionals of police cooperation in the European UnionPolicing and Society10.1080/10439463.2022.202943332:10(1167-1179)Online publication date: 30-Jan-2022
  • (2022)Biased Humans, (Un)Biased Algorithms?Journal of Business Ethics10.1007/s10551-022-05071-8183:3(637-652)Online publication date: 28-Feb-2022
  • (2022)The Humanities in the digitalThe Humanities in the Digital: Beyond Critical Digital Humanities10.1007/978-3-031-16950-2_1(1-35)Online publication date: 29-Sep-2022
  • (2021)Dealing with the Machine: Strategies of Pilots and Doctors Towards Technological IntegrationBulletin of Science, Technology & Society10.1177/0270467621106597341:4(99-115)Online publication date: 9-Dec-2021
  • (2021)Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science OnlineProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3411764.3445211(1-18)Online publication date: 6-May-2021
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media