Herbert Simon , the anti-philosopher
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Herbert Simon’s work presents a curious anomaly to the historian and philosopher trying to understand the development of classic Artiﬁcial Intelligence (AI). Simon was one of most inﬂuential ﬁgures in AI since its birth, and yet it is always with some diﬃculties that his work can be made to ﬁt within the received canon of AI’s development and goals. In fact, he diﬀered from every other ﬁgure in early AI on most counts: in terms of the recognized intellectual heritage of AI, of his own background and training, of the goals he set for his own AI work and the assessment criteria he accepted. I will argue that these diﬀerences provide important clues toward a reevaluation of the relationship between Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Herbert Simon’s work that may change our current understanding of both. On the one hand, classic Artiﬁcial Intelligence (or Complex Information Processing, as Simon preferred to call it for a number of years), provided the tool he needed to pursue a much broader research agenda that strove to encompass human beings in their cognitive, emotional, social, and political dimensions. On the other hand, AI’s curious status as the discipline that straggles the boundaries between engineering, science, and philosophy can be recast as the tool that allowed researchers to pursue philosophy’s old goals with an alternative methodology. From this perspective, Simon’s version of Artiﬁcial Intelligence becomes a full-ﬂedged form of ”anti-philosophy” as ambitious and broad-ranging as old-fashioned metaphysics and as revolutionary as the latter in the radical refashioning of its methodology. It follows that a philosophical assessment of AI, at in least in its Simonian incarnation, must be more farreaching than it is usually thought. At the methodological level, it must discuss whether AI’s invention of computer simulation as the tool that overcomes the a-priori/a-posteriori distinction by actually producing the behavior it wants to explain is really adequate to the job at hand..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Anthony O. Simon (ed.) (1998). Acquaintance with the Absolute: The Philosophy of Yves R. Simon: Essays and Bibliography. Fordham University Press.
Hubert L. Dreyfus (1985). From Socrates to Expert Systems: The Limits and Dangers of Calculative Rationality. In Carl Mitcham & Alois Huning (eds.), Philosophy and Technology II: Information Technology and Computers in Theory and Practice. Reidel
Stephen Downes (1990). Herbert Simon's Computational Models of Scientific Discovery. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:97-108.
Sent E.-M. (2001). Sent Simulating Simon Simulating Scientists. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 32 (3):479-500.
Esther-Mirjam Sent (2000). Herbert A. Simon as a Cyborg Scientist. Perspectives on Science 8 (4):380-406.
Herbert A. Simon (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. [Cambridge, M.I.T. Press.
Patrick Allo (2006). M. Augier and J. G. March : Models of a Man: Essays in Memory of Herbert Simon. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 16 (2):221-224.
Mie Augier (2000). Models of Herbert A. Simon. Perspectives on Science 8 (4):407-443.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-06-11
Total downloads8 ( #370,603 of 1,790,387 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?