The consensus among legal philosophers is probably that rule-based legal expert systems leave much to be desired as aids in legal decision-making. Why? What can we do about it? A bureaucrat administering some set of complex rules will ascertain the facts and apply the rules to them in order to discover their consequences for the case in hand. This process of deductive reasoning is characteristically bureaucratic.

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. (shrink)

Although the AI paradigm is useful for building knowledge-based systems for the applied natural sciences, there are dangers when it is extended into the domains of business, law and other social systems. It is misleading to treat knowledge as a commodity that can be separated from the context in which it is regularly used. Especially when it relates to social behaviour, knowledge should be treated as socially constructed, interpreted and maintained through its practical use in context. The meanings of terms (...) in a knowledge-base are assumed to be references to an objective reality whereas they are instruments for expressing values and exercising power. Expert systems that are not perspicuous to the expert community will lose their meanings and cease to contain genuine knowledge, as they will be divorced from the social processes essential for the maintenance of both meaning and knowledge. Perspicuity is usually sacrificed when knowledge is represented in a formalism, with the result that the original problem is compounded with a second problem of penetrating the representation language. Formalisms that make business and legal problems easier to understand are one essential research goal, not only in the quest for intelligent machines to replace intelligent human beings, but also in the wiser quest for computers to support collaborative work and other forms of social problem solving. (shrink)