Adjust to the Machines?
SLevinson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU
Wed Dec 13 13:14:34 PST 2000
I wonder what future cultural historians will make of the remarkable faith
in machines expressed by Bush lawyers? One doubts that they are so wildly
anti-humanist as they appear--lawyers, after all, don't have to believe
their own arguments--but, nonetheless, it represents a considered judgment
that the culture is ripe for arguments that machines are more reliable than
humans. Presumably, to err is (only?) human, and machines are exempt from
that. Or perhaps the real argument is that machine error is random, which
would be a far better argument had the same machines been used throughout
Florida and if the machine errors did not relate to human failures that
might not be completely random in distribution.
More information about the Conlawprof