Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Mechanical procedures require skilled interpretation at every stage, reintroducing the expert judgment they were meant to eliminate (Daston & Galison, 2007).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Mechanical procedures reduce *total* expert judgment by standardizing decisions, even if some judgment remains at initialization or validation stages.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Distinguishing judgment that *designs* a procedure from judgment that *applies* it conflates two different epistemic roles; eliminating the latter still improves objectivity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Human-only interpretation varies significantly between experts; mechanical procedures create consistency that traditional expertise never achieved.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Sample preparation, calibration, and threshold-setting in automated analysis require subjective choices that significantly affect outcomes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Machine learning models trained on human-curated datasets embed the biases and interpretive choices of their trainers into supposedly objective results.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Validation and quality control of mechanical procedures demand expert judgment to recognize when outputs are anomalous or unreliable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.