I would like to introduce the notion of machine hermeneutics in this paper. The notion refers to hermeneutical activity performed by machines. Machines are now capable of making the very interpretive tasks, using artificial intelligence algorithms based on the technology of machine learning that used to be the exclusive domain of human beings. In making this claim, I am not talking about possible conscious machines of the future, but those existing here and now. With facial recognition algorithms, for example, machines (...) are now performing routinely what must be regarded as hermeneutical analyses with astounding accuracy and power. Thus, machine hermeneutics supplements Don Ihde’s notion of material hermeneutics. In the latter, it is still human beings who do the interpretation, through the lenses provided the natural sciences; in this case, the natural sciences, or the technology afforded by the sciences, intervene between the human being and the world. In machine hermeneutics, on the contrary, the intervening comes in two layers. On the one hand, there is the usual intervention that Ihde talks about, but on the other, the artificial intelligence algorithm performs its own kind of intervention and interpretation, presenting an already interpreted result to the human beings, who then perceive it through the aid of the usual intervention such as the normal eyeglasses. Then the paper discusses the problem of how to justify the kind of perception that undergoes this process. In what sense can it be said that the algorithm is performing the right action, i.e., one such that the process comes up with a right picture of the world? I contend that this does not merely consist of technical excellence for the technology involved, but also ethical excellence. The two cannot be considered one apart from the other. (shrink)

Little of the work in critical and hermeneutical psychology has been linked to instructional technology. This article provides a discussion in order to fill the gap in this direction. The article presents a brief genealogy of American IT in relation to the influence of psychology. It also provides a critical and hermeneutical framework for psychology. It then discusses some problems of psychologism focusing on positivism, metaphysics, cultural ecology, and power. The narrow psychologism in IT produces a kind of systematic blindness (...) regarding cultural, political, and other issues. IT professionals are encouraged to engage reflectively with the power‐relations and ethical issues in which they are involved. The article points out a need for looking at psychology more comprehensively. (shrink)

Little of the work in critical and hermeneutical psychology has been linked to instructional technology (IT). This article provides a discussion in order to fill the gap in this direction. The article presents a brief genealogy of American IT in relation to the influence of psychology. It also provides a critical and hermeneutical framework for psychology. It then discusses some problems of psychologism focusing on positivism, metaphysics, cultural ecology, and power. The narrow psychologism in IT produces a kind of systematic (...) blindness regarding cultural, political, and other issues. IT professionals are encouraged to engage reflectively with the power‐relations and ethical issues in which they are involved. The article points out a need for looking at psychology more comprehensively (e.g. critical and hermeneutical psychology). (shrink)

A sharp distinction between the notions of explanation and understanding is more than relevant for contemporary philosophy. However, it is difficult to understand the current state and prospects of this terminological distinction without considering its origins. The author finds such origins in the field of philosophy and methodology of science of the nineteenth century. One cannot grasp the meaning of explanation and understanding in philosophy without considering the ordinary meanings since both notions are also actively used in the ordinary language. (...) Hence, this paper has a twofold aim. Firstly, it investigates the meaning of explanation and understanding in everyday use. Secondly, it considers the origin of the distinction between the notions in philosophy. It is proven that the origin of the explanation in philosophy can be seen in Auguste Comte’s philosophy of science, namely in the first volume of The Course in Positive Philosophy published in 1830. There Comte introduces the notion of explanation in the context of the law of three stages, as well as the notion of positive explanation which makes positive knowledge or science different from the previous stages of knowledge. As for the origin of understanding in philosophy, it is found in Droysen’s philosophy of history, namely in The Outline of the Principles of History, where Droysen makes a distinction between understanding, which is used in history, and explanation that was discussed by Comte. Consequently, explanation and understanding, after being introduced to philosophy by Comte and Droysen, become the central notions of Dilthey’s well-known methodological distinction between natural sciences and humanities. Manuscript received 16.02.2020. (shrink)