Graduate studies at Western
Theoria 3 (1):317-340 (1987)
|Abstract||Two fundamental paradigms are in conflict. Expert systems are the creation of the artificial intelligence paradigm which presumes that an objective reality can be understood and controlled by an individual expert intelligence that can be replaced by machinery. The alternative paradigm assumes that reality is the subjective product of human beings striving to collaborate through shared norms and experiences, a process that can be assisted by but never replaced by computers. The first paradigm is appropriate in the domains of natural science and mathematics but dangerous in social sciencet business and, especially, the law. Expert systems are constructed on the basis of a number of metaphysical assumptions that are invalid in the legal domain. These assumptions are assimilated through a number ofcommonplace metaphors that guide the thoughts of the majority of people entering the computing field who are usually trained in first paradigm subjects such as mathematics and the natural science. This inappropriate paradigm hinders our progress in the field of computers and law. We need to adopt a socially orientated view of tbe nature of reality, of language, of meaning, of intelligence, and of reasoning. It will be easier then to build computer systems to facilitate social interactions in the legal domain and easier to understand why boxes that try to imitate legal expertise are intrinsically fraudulent|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Roger M. Cooke (1991). Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science. Oxford University Press.
Paul E. Johnson (1983). What Kind of Expert Should a System Be? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8 (1):77-97.
Anja Oskamp (1992). Model for Knowledge and Legal Expert Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (4):245-274.
Ronald K. Stamper (1991). The Role of Semantics in Legal Expert Systems and Legal Reasoning. Ratio Juris 4 (2):219-244.
Go Eguchi & Laurence L. Leff (2002). Rule-Based XML. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (4).
John Zeleznikow, George Vossos & Daniel Hunter (1993). The IKBALS Project: Multi-Modal Reasoning in Legal Knowledge Based Systems. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (3):169-203.
István Borgulya (1999). Two Examples of Decision Support in the Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):303-321.
Graham Greenleaf, Andrew Mowbray & Peter Dijk (1995). Representing and Using Legal Knowledge in Integrated Decision Support Systems: Datalex Workstations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 3 (1-2):97-142.
Omar E. M. Khalil (1993). Artificial Decision-Making and Artificial Ethics: A Management Concern. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 12 (4):313 - 321.
Willard Downs & Kelley Ann Newton (1989). Legal Implications in Development and Use of Expert Systems in Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2 (1):53-58.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #291,948 of 722,947 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,947 )
How can I increase my downloads?