18 May
2014
18 May
'14
11:46 a.m.
I disagree strongly with your statement, "There
is far too much about the
human aspect of a [sic] artefact, and that is not science." Technology i
a human behavior, and preserving the artifact (US spelling) but not its
cultural context is telling only a small part of the story. That is my
concern with much that is written as "computer history": it is purely about
the construction and functioning of an artifact but fails to convey that
contextual component. Such "internalist" histories are not without value,
but we do a disservice to the future if we stop there. Equally incomplete
In general I agree with you. The cultural aspect of a technological
artefact _is_ important, but that be as it may, IMHO it is not science.
So yes, if you want to have museum which records the cultural aspect of a
partical technology (say 'computers'), that's fine. But don't call it a
science musuem. I guess my main complaint is not the such museums exist
(they cetainly shoudl do!), but that museums that actually describe the
science -- the 'how it works', the physical principles behiund it, etc
are very few and far between.
Finally, a museum of technology may be a very
different beast than a
classic, archival museum that puts things in cases and writes little signs
The problem is that IMHO the London Science Musuem is a parody of such
musuems. It puts artefacts in glass cases, gives nthe arty-farty lightign
so you can't see them properly, and has totally inadequate descriptions
of them.
There are very few wrking models now (when I was younger there were many,
not necessarily historic artefacts, but often models specifically made to
illustrate how said artefact worked ans was used). It really is a total
disapointment for me.
-tony