New Science Museum - Now With Real Science!

OpenYourEyes writes "There is a new science museum, run by the National Academy of Science, that has opened in DC. So what? Unklike many museums which simplify their message or use fake data, the exhibits at the Koshland Science Museum are all based on real research, real reports, and real science. Each one contains references to the research reports and data they are based on. Exhibits on DNA, for example, use actual (and long!) DNA sequences to help illustrate how DNA plays a role in disease, agriculture, and criminology. There are also exhibits on Global Climate Change and The Wonders of Science."

Comments

Finally!

[Autumnmist]

Finally! I've long outgrown the simplified explanations of the Boston Museum of Science (though it's still a lot of fun to visit) and the various science-related exhibits touring places like the Museum of Natural History in NY. Definitely putting this one down on my list of places to visit. Just because we're not in middle school anymore doesn't mean we lost that same curiosity...

My take..

[hookedup]

Unklike many museums which simplify their message
I doubt they do this because they want to, think about it.. joe average would much rather see flashy presentations than boring old research papers. It's sad but true.. and museums have to do this in order to bring people in..

Re:My take..

[slackerboy]

Hey, let's face it, most scientists and researchers would rather see flashy presentations than boring old research papers (at least outside of their areas of expertise).

I quick flip through the website shows that they still have a flashy presentation, but then you have the option of looking at further reading (both scientific journals and popular media) and other websites. This is a definite improvement and I think it may be the museum equivalent of making the source code available. ("Hey, we're not just BSing, take a look at the research that backs us up!")

What's wrong with simplifying the message?

[newdamage]

As a big fan of the St. Louis Science Center, I don't what's wrong with simplifying science for exhibits, especially when they're aimed at kids. I hear alot on Slashdot how America is being dumbed down and losing it's focus on science and industry. If science museums, while maybe slightly flawed, keep kids interested in science and help them gravitate towards science and engineering, what's the problem?

Science is not facts on parade . . .

[StateOfTheUnion]

I've long complained about science museums as childish, not giving science its full credit, and not giving the patrons a good understanding of the intricacies, complexity, and beauty of the scientific world. Of course I don't expect a museum to explain quantum mechanics in detail, but I do expect some idea of the evidence and data and perhaps a bit of the process that led us to the conclusion that we commonly accept as fact (After all we do call that the Scientific method).

So many museums have pretty diagrams showing "facts" but not much of the thinking that shows how we discovered and got to those facts (or conclusions or theories as the case may be).

Science is not facts. It's not bullets. It's not a list of terms describing a cross section of the earth. It's problem solving, experimentation, cross examination, peer review, drawing conclusions, making inferences, designing experiements . . . it encompasses higher thought processes than memorization of facts. Why don't most of the museums make an effort to show this?

Re:Dumbing down is a good thing

[Lurker McLurker]

I think you are underestimating people. Someone who has chosen to go to a Science Museum must have some interest in the subject, and want to find out more. Someone who simply wants to be entertained could think of dozens of more interesting things to do. You can't compare the science in a Hollywood film to the science in a museum. In one, the science is in the background; in the other, it is the main point.

If knowledge is presented in the right way, with plain English and interactive exhibits, why can't we also have the background, and references to actual research as well?

you take wrong.

[hndrcks]

Van Gogh, Gaugin, Toulouse-Lautrec, Whistler, Matisse - they were all considered "TRASH OF NO VALUE!" at some time in their career. Good thing the Dr. Gachets of the world don't listen to your ilk. Art is art, science is science. Leave money out of it, it has nothing to do with value.

Re:My take on the subject

[Hans Lehmann]

All art, with the exception of that which contains valuable ingredients (gold jewelry, etc.), is essentially trash of no value.

The Mona Lisa is just a plank of wood with paint slathered on it. Rembrant's sculptures are just chunks of rock; hell I can get those for free.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not art. If a musuem paid a million dollars for something shiny, and it's the only one of its kind, then that's exactly what it's worth.

Never understood obsession with "understanding"

[Jerf]

I've never understood the obsession with "everybody must understand everything". By the time you're dumbing down the content for the lowest common denominator, you've got nearly nothing of substance beyond:

The magnets attract each other because of magic. We label this magic "magnetism". It's really complicated, but there are wizards who understand it. The magic is said to involve "poles", like the "north pole" and the "south pole", which is related to the north and south pole of the Earth in ways you can't understand. You now know nothing really about magnetism, but you can now sling around the labels "north magnetic pole" and "south magnetic pole" and sound like you understand something, just like the engineers on Star Trek! Speaking of which, here's a few pictures from Star Trek.

Now, I understand and totally agree that people can't jump from ignorance to Maxwell's equations, nor should they have to. And there's good reason to believe that Maxwell's equations are totally beyond most children (see developmental psychology; the cognitive skills necessary to understand calculus typically do not develop until the kid hits double-digits in the age).

On the other hand, why must the whole exhibit be geared at the introductory level? A museum is a big place. Surely at least a little bit of room could be spared for some more sophisticated information in parallel with the simplified stuff? 10-year-old and Dad ought to be able to learn something.

(I have a similar criticism of the educational system. Why should we expect every child to 100% master the same math? Instead, set a baseline, and include varying levels of math in the same lessons. Especially as you get into Algebra and beyond, it's increasingly easy to challenge your students while making sure everyone understands the baseline, even in the exact same classroom. The myth that every student should perform 100% on every assignment is one of the worst blocks to educational reform today. We should expect children to get things wrong... because next time they try, they'll do better, and next time, they'll do better, and next time, they'll do better, etc.... and those children end up way ahead of the ones confined to just what they can do ~100% the first time... and as we've seen, 100% perfection has a habit of receding over time, instead of advancing as we need.

It's all the same fallacy, playing out over and over again, museums, schools, college, television shows, everywhere.)