Stuart Elden wrote:
> Interestingly, Hubert Dreyfus trained as a
> physicist before working on Heidegger and Foucault. Dreyfus' book on
> Heidegger, and his What Machines Still Can't Do show this interest in
> technology and science.
Are you sure you are not confusing Bert
with his brother, who is, ironically,
also named Stuart, with whom he
co-authored one of his books, and who
remains a
practicing scientist?
In any event, I must be expressing
myself exceedingly poorly, as I remain
badly
misunderstood. I am already quite aware
that there lots of books like What
Machines Can't Do, which are basically
critical studies of science and
technology, having devoted years of
study to them. My disappointment is
that
there are only critical studies
available. There are no positive
studies. What
Computers Can't Do throws a sorry sop in
this direction at the end, but any
scientist can tell you that it is short
on critical details. Terry Winograd and
Fernando Flores also made a stab in the
dark, and came up with nothing.
Nothing has come of these books. They
have only served to demoralize
would-be scientists in artificial
intelligence, which is not in itself
bad. It
is good, to the extent that it slows
down the progress of the scientific
machinery, but it only prolongs the
inevitable. There has been, still, no
positive contribution from critical
science studies. There has been no
viable
alternative research programme arising
from it. The subtitle of Dreyfus' book
says it all "A Critique of Artificial
Reason". Just a critique, no viable
proposal. Ultimately, therefore, of no
consequence.
> Interestingly, Hubert Dreyfus trained as a
> physicist before working on Heidegger and Foucault. Dreyfus' book on
> Heidegger, and his What Machines Still Can't Do show this interest in
> technology and science.
Are you sure you are not confusing Bert
with his brother, who is, ironically,
also named Stuart, with whom he
co-authored one of his books, and who
remains a
practicing scientist?
In any event, I must be expressing
myself exceedingly poorly, as I remain
badly
misunderstood. I am already quite aware
that there lots of books like What
Machines Can't Do, which are basically
critical studies of science and
technology, having devoted years of
study to them. My disappointment is
that
there are only critical studies
available. There are no positive
studies. What
Computers Can't Do throws a sorry sop in
this direction at the end, but any
scientist can tell you that it is short
on critical details. Terry Winograd and
Fernando Flores also made a stab in the
dark, and came up with nothing.
Nothing has come of these books. They
have only served to demoralize
would-be scientists in artificial
intelligence, which is not in itself
bad. It
is good, to the extent that it slows
down the progress of the scientific
machinery, but it only prolongs the
inevitable. There has been, still, no
positive contribution from critical
science studies. There has been no
viable
alternative research programme arising
from it. The subtitle of Dreyfus' book
says it all "A Critique of Artificial
Reason". Just a critique, no viable
proposal. Ultimately, therefore, of no
consequence.