[earthscienceman]

Wait. Does this pass for science in these fields, psychology and medicine? They summarize various statistics from prior papers as if they are trends across space and time (hello sample bias, are there papers that contradict their claims they are omitting because it doesn't fit their thesis?) and then make broad conclusions based on anecdotal evidence and sweeping theories.

This should barely pass as a "kids these days" like-and-share from your grandpa on Facebook that has a bunch of comments from Cheryl about how true it is. Which is tragic, because it's something anyone who spends time with children can figure out... that independence makes for a happy child. But to be published in a journal I thought the point was to find rigorous evidence for such things, not muddy the waters further with vague specious claims.

[lelanthran]

> Does this pass for science in these fields, psychology and medicine? They summarize various statistics from prior papers as if they are trends across space and time (hello sample bias, are there papers that contradict their claims they are omitting because it doesn't fit their thesis?) and then make broad conclusions based on anecdotal evidence and sweeping theories.

I feel that if you've never heard of a meta-study then you must not be very deep into science at all - like, even undergraduates know what a meta-study is.

[Apocryphon]

crustscienceman

[eielhejesfoest]

Are the personal attacks necessary? Don’t use yourself as a reference point for everyone else’s experience, that’s a very privileged thing to do.

[lelanthran]

> Are the personal attacks necessary? Don’t use yourself as a reference point for everyone else’s experience, that’s a very privileged thing to do.

Where did I use myself as a reference point? I'm not talking about my lived experience, so there's no need to bring that into the discussion.

[uoaei]

You've evidently never heard of a meta-analysis.

[b112]

In the real Foundation books, which the TV series barely resembles, this was part of the galactic empire's decline. With so many studies done, over tens of thousands of years, on millions of planets, each with hundreds of millions of people, there was an immense load of prior work. And meta-analysis was where all research ended up.

Just read a bunch of papers, summarize them, and write a new paper. Scientific research had devolved to the point, that no one knew how to do new research.

[caconym_]

Despite Asimov's opinion on the matter, it seems that in reality the meta-analysis is a useful tool for understanding the de facto scientific consensus on some topic beyond the scope of a single paper/study.

[b800h]

I think the original naive critique is valid though. What if the consensus is wrong? But of course, it's better than one random study, unless you particularly trust that researcher and none of the others.

[Apocryphon]

Still not sure where he mentions it in the series, but I wonder if it's Asimov making up a far futuristic galactic version of Scholasticism, with its focus on reinterpreting existing works, for his far future version of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

[GeoAtreides]

Someone still needs to know what the consensus is before they challenge it.

[Apocryphon]

Without disputing that Asimov might have brought up such a concept somewhere in the series, it certainly is not a prime factor mentioned in the first novel.

"Good. Add to this the known probability of Imperial assassination, viceregal revolt, the contemporary recurrence of periods of economic depression, the declining rate of planetary explorations, the..."

[...]

Gaal said, "As Trantor becomes more specialized, it becomes more vulnerable, less able to defend itself. Further, as it becomes more and more the administrative center of Empire, it becomes a greater prize. As the Imperial succession becomes more and more uncertain, and the feuds among the great families more rampant, social responsibility disappears."

[b112]

Without disputing that Asimov might have brought up such a concept somewhere in the series, it certainly is not a prime factor mentioned in the first novel.

Quoting part of the novel, does not mean other parts do not eapouse other things.

One "decline theme" was that the overall culture of the empire was in decline. And part of that, was attributed to stagnation, which exhibited as a lack of scientific change, and advancement. There were other ways this was exhibited, such as how spacers didn't even understand how their ships worked, because they didn't need to. They had been so static for thousands of years, with no change in their drive systems, that rote repair guides were all that were required.

And that there were few experts left who even understood the drives.

Amusingly, with all the changes, the TV series got this right. The Foundation shows immediate, groundbreaking scientific advancement in many areas, the Empire immediately falls behind technologically, a mere generation after the empire withdraws from their section of the galaxy.

And with a mere handful of specialists in each branch of science, at that!

And in the TV series, again a good parallel to the books, one of the primary characters' planets has reverted to barbarism, rejecting science, demonizing those who dare learn!

Culture was a primary reason for the fall of the Empire. Stagnation.

[Apocryphon]

As I mention in the other comment, I wonder if the regurgitation of research idea was Asimov's take on far future galactic dark ages Scholasticism. Which would fit the theme of stagnation, sure.

[b112]

While none of us live in a bubble, I dislike the concept that alludes to non-original thought as the basis of ideas.

He could have merely looked around, thought to the future, and derived ideas... independently, from his own thoughts on the matter.

[edflsafoiewq]

He's refering to the episode near the beginning with Lord Dorwin.

"Then why rely on him? Why not go to Arcturus and study the remains for yourself?"

Lord Dorwin raised his eyebrows and took a pinch of snuff hurriedly. "Why, whatevah foah, my deah fellow?"

"To get the information firsthand, of course."

"But wheah's the necessity? It seems an uncommonly woundabout and hopelessly wigmawolish method of getting anywheahs. Look heah, now, I've got the wuhks of all the old mastahs - the gweat ahchaeologists of the past. I wigh them against each othah - balance the disagweements - analyze the conflicting statements - decide which is pwobably cowwect - and come to a conclusion. That is the scientific method. At least" - patronizingly -"as I see it. How insuffewably cwude it would be to go to Ahctuwus, oah to Sol, foah instance, and blundah about, when the old mastahs have covahed the gwound so much moah effectually than we could possibly hope to do."

[...]

As they left the room, Hardin said suddenly, "Milord, may I ask a question?"

[...]

"No. It's this: Last year we received news here in Terminus about the meltdown of a power plant on Planet V of Gamma Andromeda. We got the barest outline of the accident - no details at all. I wonder if you could tell me exactly what happened."

Pirenne's mouth twisted. "I wonder you annoy his lordship with questions on totally irrelevant subjects."

"Not at all, Doctah Piwenne," interceded the chancellor. "It is quite all wight. Theah isn't much to say concuhning it in any case. The powah plant did undergo meltdown and it was quite a catastwophe, y'know. I believe wadiatsen damage. Weally, the govuhnment is sewiously considewing placing seveah westwictions upon the indiscwiminate use of nucleah powah - though that is not a thing for genewal publication, y'know."

"I understand," said Hardin. "But what was wrong with the plant?"

"Well, weally," replied Lord Dorwin indifferently, "who knows? It had bwoken down some yeahs pweviously and it is thought that the weplacements and wepaiah wuhk wuh most infewiah. It is so difficult these days to find men who weally undahstand the moah technical details of ouah powah systems." And he took a sorrowful pinch of snuff.