You are here

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Response
Response to our reviewers
  1. Juan Manuel Durán1,
  2. Karin Rolanda Jongsma2
  1. 1Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
  2. 2Julius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr Juan Manuel Durán, Delft University of Technology, Delft 2600 AA, The Netherlands; j.m.duran{at}tudelft.nl

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107531

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We would like to thank the authors of the commentaries for their critical appraisal of our feature article, Who is afraid of black box algorithms?1 Their comments, suggestions and concerns are various, and we are glad that our article contributes to the academic debate about the ethical and epistemic conditions for medical Explanatory AI (XAI).

    We would like to bring to attention a few issues that are common worries across reviewers. Most prominently are the merits of computational reliabilism (CR)—in particular, when promoted as an alternative to transparency—and CR as necessary but not sufficient for delivering trust. We finalise our response by addressing concerns about the place and role of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical decision-making and the physician’s responsibilities.

    We understand the concerns and reservations that some of the reviewers express regarding the epistemic merits of CR. We believe that, in part, this is due to a practice too deeply rooted in transparency. But on …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Both authors contributed equally, provided critical intellectual input and revisions, and read and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles

    Other content recommended for you