skip to main content
research-article

From daguerreotypes to algorithms: machines, expertise, and three forms of objectivity

Published:28 March 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

What claims are made about the objectivity of machines versus that of human experts? Whereas most current debates focus on the growing impact of algorithms in the age of Big Data, I argue here in favor of taking a longer historical perspective on these developments. Drawing on Daston and Galison's analysis of scientific production since the eighteenth century, I show that their distinction among three forms of objectivity ("truth-to-nature," "mechanical objectivity," and "trained judgment") sheds light on existing discussions about algorithmic objectivity and accountability in expert fields.

References

  1. Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a Cultural, Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon. danah boyd, Kate Crawford. Information, Communication, & Society, 15 (5): 662-679, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Objectivity. Lorraine Daston, Peter Galison, Zone Books, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. From New Deal Institutions to Capital Markets: Commercial Consumer Risk Scores and the Making of Subprime Mortgage Finance. Martha Poon. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34(5): 654-674, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Disciplined Doctors: The Electronic Medical Record and Physicians' Changing Relationship to Medical Knowledge. Adam Reich. Social Science & Medicine 74 (7): 1021-28, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. Wendy N. Espeland, Michael Sauder. American Journal of Sociology 113(1): 1-40, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Using Big Data for Legal and Law Enforcement Decisions: Testing the New Tools. Lydia Bennett Moses, Janet Chan. UNSW Law Journal 37(2): 643-678, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Toward an ethics of algorithms: Convening, observation, probability, and timeliness. Mike Ananny. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1): 93-117, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Governing algorithms : Myth, Mess, and Methods. Malte Ziewitz. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1): 3-16, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader