Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 10:57:59 -0600 From: Wynship Hillier <whi-AT-wenet.net> Subject: Re: Foucauldian examinations of The Market 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.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005