You cannot be serious! Public understanding of technology with special reference to “Hawk-Eye”

Abstract

Public understanding of science, though it approaches the specialist knowledge of experts only in rare circumstances, can be enhanced more broadly in respect of the processes of science and technology. The public understanding of measurement errors and confidence intervals could be enhanced if “sports decision aids,” such as the Hawk-Eye system, were to present their results in a different way. There is a danger that Hawk-Eye as used could inadvertently cause naïve viewers to overestimate the ability of technological devices to resolve disagreement among humans because measurement errors are not made salient. For example, virtual reconstructions can easily be taken to show “exactly what really happened.” Suggestions are made for how confidence levels might be measured and represented and “health warnings” attached to reconstructions. A general principle for the use of sports decision aids is put forward. A set of open questions about Hawk-Eye is presented which, if answered, could help inform discussions of its use and accuracy.

Keywords

sports decision aids Hawk-Eye public understanding of technology simulations cricket tennis.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bijker, W.E. (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.

Bijker, W.E. , Hughes, T.P. and Pinch, T.J. , eds (1987) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.

Boyce, T. (2007) Health, Risk and News: The MMR Vaccine and the Media. New York: Peter Lang.

Collins, H.M. and Evans, R. (2002) "The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience," Social Studies of Science 32: 235-96.

Collins, H.M. and Evans, R. (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

Collins, H.M. , and Pinch, T. (1993) The Golem: What Everyone Should Know about Science . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, H.M. and Pinch, T.J. (1998) The Golem at Large: What You Should Know about Technology. Cambridge and New York : Cambridge University Press.

Collins, H.M. and Pinch, T.J. (2005) Dr Golem: How to Think about Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Council for Science and Technology (2005) "Policy through Dialog." URL: www.2.cst.gov.uk/cst/reports/files/policy-through-dialogue/report.pdf (accessed 15 February 2008 ).

10.

ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) ( 1999) "The Politics of GM Food: Risk, Science and Public Trust," ESRC Special Briefing No. 5, October. Swindon: ESRC.

11.

Evans, R. (2008) "The Sociology of Expertise: The Distribution of Social Fluency," Sociology Compass 2(1): 281-98. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00062.x

12.

Fischetti, M. (2007) "In or Out?," Scientific American July: 96-7.

13.

Garner, R. (2005) The Joy of Stats: A Short Guide to Introductory Statistics in the Social Sciences. Peterborough, Ontario : Broadview Press.

14.

Horlick-Jones, T. , Walls, J. , Rowe, G. , Pidgeon, N. , Poortinga, W. , O'Riordan, T. and Murdock, G. (2007) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement . London: Routledge.

15.

House of Lords (2000) Science and Society: Science and Technology Select Committee, Third Report. London: HMSO. URL: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm (accessed 23 January 2002).

16.

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1996) "On the Reality of Cognitive Illusions," Psychological Review 103: 582-91.

17.

Kahneman, D. , Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982) Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Kuhn, T.S. (1961) "The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science," Isis 52: 162-76.

19.

Lacey, R. (1994) Mad Cow Disease: The History of BSE in Britain . St Helier: Cypsela.

20.

Lave, J. (1988) Cognition in Practice. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

21.

Mather, G. (2008) "Perceptual Uncertainty and Line-Call Challenges in Professional Tennis," Proceedings of the Royal Society B 10.1098/rspb.2008.0211

22.

Office of Science and Technology (OST) (2002 ) The Government's Approach to Public Dialogue on Science and Technology. London: OST. URL: http://www.ost.gov.uk/society/public_dialogue.htm (accessed 27 September 2005).

23.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology ( 2001) Open Channels: Public Dialogue in Science and Technology. Report No. 153, March. London: HMSO.

24.

Peters, C.A.F. (1856) "Uber die Bestimmung des wahrscheimlichen Fehlers einer Beobachtung aus den Abweichungen der Beobachtungen von ihrem arithmetischen Mittel," Astronomische Nachrichen, 44: 30-1.

25.

Rowntree, D. (1981) Statistics without Tears: A Primer for Non-Mathematicians . Harmondsworth: Penguin.

26.

Welsh, I. (2000) Mobilising Modernity: The Nuclear Moment. London: Routledge.

27.

Winograd, T. and Flores, F. (1987) Understanding Computers and Cognition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

28.

Wynne, B. (1982) Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain. Chalfont St Giles: British Society for the History of Science.