Asimov's biographical encyclopedia of science and technology

What Hacker News says

1. fuzzfactorNov 2024
   You may like this:

   Asimov's_Biographical_Encyclopedia_of_Science_and_Technology

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimov%27s_Biographical_Encycl...

   >a history of science by Isaac Asimov, written as the biographies of initially 1000 scientists and later with over 1500 entries. Organized chronologically, beginning with Imhotep

   Wikipedia actually lists all 1500.

   Show morethread
2. fuzzfactorAug 2023
   Depends on what you call engaging, there's always Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimov%27s_Biographical_Encycl...

   thread
3. fuzzfactorSep 2022
   One of the best books by Asimov goes along with Profession fairly well, the non-fiction work Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimov%27s_Biographical_Encycl...

   thread
4. WillAdamsDec 2024
   It is surprisingly difficult to study history chronologically when one gets beyond the scope of a given text/item due to overlap.

   When I was still reading to my children in the evening, after running through all the standard texts (Narnia, _The Hobbit_, _The Lord of the Rings_, Susan Cooper's _The Dark is Rising_, H. Beam Piper's _Little Fuzzy_, &c.), I decided I wanted to read biographies to them, in chronological order, starting in as far back in history as was possible --- that was a surprisingly difficult list to put together (arguably because I missed texts such as: _Isaac Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology: The Lives and Achievements of 1195 Great Scientists from Ancient Times to the Present Chronologically Arranged_), so we did a dry run of just American Presidents --- this worked quite well, and I found it expedient to read an "adult" biography to pair with a children's one so as to anticipate and answer questions which came up during the reading. Unfortunately, my wife's job schedule changed and we stopped this at Truman, but it was very helpful in improving my understanding of the ebb-and-flow of American history.

   EDIT:

   Interestingly, this has been posted about here in the past on multiple occasions, but none of them yielded any prior discussion AFAICT:

   https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=oldmapsonline.org

   It would be really interesting to see this paired with a dataset such as:

   https://www.explorehere.app/

   From: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42381612

   Show morethread
5. fuzzfactorFeb 2017
   "Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology is a history of science by Isaac Asimov, written as the biographies of over 1500 scientists."

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimov's_Biographical_Encyclop...

   fuzz

   thread
6. dalkeFeb 2012
   There are three issues here: primary sources, secondary sources, and original research. You said "An encyclopedia is a survey of existing secondary sources". It is not. An encyclopedia also contains references to primary sources, and can also contain new research.

   A reference to a primary source would be, for example, a reference to Newton's "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" or to Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". An article on the history of evolutionary thought would be remiss if it does not include Darwin's book and instead only referred to books discussing Darwin's work. Like the children's game "telephone", only relying on secondary (and then tertiary, then quaternary) sources can amplify noise.

   You then asked about "examples of original research published in the Encyclopedia of Physics". There are two different types of research involved here. One is "original to the field of physics". Physics has a well-established mechanism for publishing and disseminating work, and that is not an encyclopedia.

   The other is the research needed to reconcile and synthesize multiple viewpoints into a well-constructed whole. A non-fiction piece for the New Yorker likely entails new research (even an interview is new research), and that's the type of research which goes well with an encyclopedia. Take a look at Wikipedia's entry for "History of the Encyclopædia Britannica" with comments like "40,000-word hagiographic biography of George Washington" and "Dr. Thomas Thomson, who introduced the first usage of chemical symbols in the 1801 supplement". Thomas Young translated the Rosetta Stone and in his WP page is written "[s]ome of Young's conclusions appeared in the famous article "Egypt" he wrote for the 1818 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica."

   Or take Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. The entire encyclopedia was written by Asimov, who commented "I alone have done every bit of the necessary research and writing; and without any assistance whatever, not even that of a typist." Right there in the text it says "research."

   Do you think these examples of the research which goes into encyclopedia articles aren't actual research? If not, why not? Or are these simply not encyclopedias?

   As to "if Britannica is paying"... do you think Harry Houdini, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Sigmund Freud, Henry Ford, Leon Trotsky, Arthur Eddington, Lord Kelvin, Humphry Davy, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Malthus, and yes, even Isaac Newton, were contributors to EB mostly because they were being paid for their work? Most certainly not! (How much would Ford's time cost?) From what I've read, other factors were because they wanted to contribute to a collection of knowledge, and because of the prestige.

   Show morethread