Vol.3 No.1 2010

101/110

Round-table talk : Synthesiology on the Second Anniversary−98−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.3 No.1 (2010) explainable structure in the form of “synthesiology” is not yet established. I can see it by reading each paper, but I’m not sure whether the common structure is apparent to a third party who reads the paper. As I wrote in the “Introduction to service engineering” in Volume 1 No. 2, I think there is a temporary area of discipline. This temporary discipline is like a logical system that the researchers set up to solve a certain problem. Say there is an interesting device and the researcher must figure out how to create a concrete device from some abstract basic principle, and how to discuss it with the manufacturer, and in doing so the verbal quality must be raised to a logical level. I, however, can’t see that level being achieved in the papers even if I read between the lines or even through the lines. I think it will be better if the authors can present some logical quality.Deepening “synthesiology”(Ono)We are working on “synthesiology” that seeks logical and common principles by accumulating the results of synthetic and integrating research activities, and it is necessary to deepen this practice. Dr. Akamatsu, you gave a lecture called “Expectation for ergonomics as ‘synthesiology’” at the annual conference of Japan Ergonomics Society.(Akamatsu)I compared the developments of the endoscope and the x-ray in the lecture. It took 100 years for the realization of the endoscope, while the x-ray was employed in medicine in less than a year. The negative aspects of the x-ray were unknown when it was employed, and lots of harm was done. I suggested that perhaps some period of “valley of death” is necessary. After that, I talked about “discipline”, “relationship between social expectations and academics”, “why ‘synthesiology’ is difficult”, “‘synthesiology’ and engineering”, and “ergonomics as ‘synthesiology’”.Concerning “discipline”, Dr. Yoshikawa suggested that in contrast to the “scientific discipline” of the natural sciences, we create a “temporary discipline” by focusing the target of the issue to be solved, and this will grow into a “mature discipline”, which shall be called “engineering”. While the “temporary discipline” attempts to solve the actual problem for some specific artifact, it becomes more abstract as the discipline advances, and when the temporary discipline becomes a mature discipline, and then becomes a scientific discipline, it tends to fall back to the analytical method. How one can stay adequately in the temporary discipline is necessary in synthesis. This is because when the researchers create a language for a discipline and seek law and principle, they start working to elaborate the law. Naturally, they delve into analysis to pursue consistency in the discipline and try to create a beautiful system, and this poses the danger of weakening the dynamics to face society. This is related to “Why is “synthesiology” difficult?” When we cannot communicate with people in other disciplines, it is difficult to integrate and instead we turn to analysis.In “‘synthesiology’ and engineering”, what we call kogaku is a Japanese translation of the English “engineering”, but the word origin of engineer is “wise and skillful people making things”. Originally there was no meaning of discipline in “engineering” but “synthesiology” is trying to make it into a discipline. Engineering, a temporary discipline, is created from the works of the people who are capable of creating complex artifacts. That is exactly the objective of “synthesiology”.For “ergonomics as ‘synthesiology’”, when we define innovation as the introduction of scientific knowledge into society, “ergonomics is the study of creating an artifact that can adapt to human beings”, and it may play an important role in “synthesiology”. It may seem that something that is suitable for humankind can be made using knowledge of human beings, but things are not that simple. If the human characteristics can be known, we should be able to evaluate a product based on that. But unfortunately, current ergonomics cannot make something creatively. What is lacking? For example, “noisy” is a physical property of sound pressure, but the common issue today is that the noise from the floor above becomes bothersome in a quieter environment. When living conditions were poor, this issue could be explained by physics or the language of natural science, but when the poor living conditions improved, it became something that could not be discussed by the language of natural science. Here, the researchers realize for the first time that they cannot make something that is truly useful to human beings unless we study humankind thoroughly. Rather than creating a scientific discipline that studies a natural subject, we must practice “synthesiology” for making things that “will be used” in science of “society” that is created by human activities. This is the “social” science as proposed by Dr. Yoshikawa.(Kobayashi)In a recent experience, I helped an energy project at my university. The project never took off, but I had conversations Dr. Motoyuki Akamatsu

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です