Books like The Investigation

I like fiction books that examine serious questions in the course of the narrative, but in my opinion, here the execution is very flawed. Perhaps I could roughly describe the book as a cross between the science fiction of Philip K Dick, the philosophy of science and the nature of the world of David Hume, and the fiction/philosophy of Milan Kundera. But there are crucial differences.Unlike Philip K Dick, there's no clever plot that engages and intrigues, and there's no resolution either. Dick let the stories speak for themselves, providing the philosophical questions. Here, this is achieved crudely, by having the plot as a transparent vehicle for the author to put long, abstract, philosophical/psychological words to the mouths of the characters. As a result, characters appear inconsistent, pretentious, and unrealistic.Unlike David Hume, the philosophical parts feel incomplete and superficial. Hume used precise language and logical argumentation, and he also wrote modestly about what philosophy, reasoning and words can achieve. Here, there's a lot of vague language and cinematic descriptions that detract from the ideas, which aren't that unique in the first place, it's a somewhat postmodernist, "all is relative", "observations and facts are in the mind" argument, repeated again and again with no variety.Finally, unlike Milan Kundera, there's no flowing readability. Kundera walks the fiction/philosophy line by switching between story and thoughts. Perhaps it's not ideal, but it's better than the mishmash here. Streetwise Scotland Yard officers talk in a weird, half formal, half casual language (it switches randomly) which I've never heard in real life. Characters (out of the blue) say random things (to suit the philosophy) or have unexpected revelations and emotional ups and downs that fit with neither the story nor the character. Someone suddenly feels like this, then like that, out of the blue he's sick and not going to work, then goes, then loses the plot and panics, then relaxes, seems everyone is an emotional wreck tormented by some deep thoughts they can't fully articulate. At one minute, a character doesn't believe the metaphysical elements of the story (because they go against his core philosophy), the next minute he does, at one minute detectives have a down to earth and practical discussion on the case, the next minute they start an abstract, psychological/philosophical analysis on the nature of knowledge.Two last things, I don't get why the author (since he was trying to use science and argue that statistics is the only knowledge available) didn't include any references to quantum mechanics, which provides the main evidence that the universe acts in a probabilistic way (the book was written in 1959, well into the quantum age). Finally, as another reviewer wrote, many parts suggesting how Scotland Yard operates sound like they were acquired from early American books or film noir, it's as if the author didn't bother to do any basic research. Although I wonder if this (along with the other criticism above on language) has to do more with the translation.