Vol.3 No.2 2010

72/86

Report : Knowledge for interdisciplinary consilience−175−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.3 No.2 (2010) painfully realized that they might have become so distant from social demands. Of course, it isn’t that the existing elemental technology is useless. It is useful for screening chemical substances, but it is not directly useful for any other purposes.I think there are outward and homeward passages to solve an issue. In “synthesiology”, the main passage is homeward bound from integration and synthesis to the goal (product). To do so, there is a strategic selection of reviewing all elemental technologies, and I think I walked outward when I thought about how to combine the established technologies. When the social issue that one wishes to solve changes, this cyclic path is traveled again, and when another issue that must be solved arises, you must walk through the cycle yet again.[New academic system]Tatsuji Hara (The University of Tokyo)I was the chief editor of the journal called the Okan or the Journal of TFST for two years, and currently, I am a senior member of the Knowledge Integration Subcommittee, Integrated Engineering Committee, Science Council of Japan, under Chairman Tachi. I would like to present my thoughts, along with the activities of TFST.When Dr. Yoshikawa was the chairman at the Science Council of Japan, the framework of science for recognition and science for design were created for the “new academic system”. While conventional “science” corresponds to science for recognition, it is academics for science, and is the “pursuit of what is” On the other hand, science for design is what is conventionally called “technology”, and this is academics for society, and is “the pursuit of what should be”. Both academics based on intellectual curiosity and academics focusing on values and objectives are equally important, and this is the new system of academics.I considered along the two axes: one of science for recognition and science for design, and the other of mono and koto proposed by TFST.What we called science for recognition and science for design at the Science Council might correspond to the way of thinking focusing on mono (subject). Science for recognition is roughly considered “science” where the subject is nature, life, and phenomenon, and aims at theorization, generalization, and systematization. In contrast, science for design is an artifact system, or designing and realizing the artifact. It is characterized by keywords of practical, individual, and specific. I think it corresponds to the conventional vertical engineering based on the vertical disciplines such as mechanics and electrics. These more or less look only at the mono. However, to actually create an artifact system that is useful to society, both mono (subject) and koto (function) are necessary. Science and vertical engineering are firmly established as disciplines for accurately understanding the “subject”. However, for system engineering and system theory that are transdisciplinary technologies to be valid, it is necessary to define what corresponds to the specification of the “function” for “subject”.When we think “what is ‘synthesiology’”, it is not just “subject” and it is not just “function”, but it probably aims right in between. As a contraposition to “synthesiology”, I shall set “integration science” since the other keyword of TFST is “knowledge integration”. If this integration science and “synthesiology” correspond to the new science for recognition and science for design that deal with “subject” and “function”, I think that is one way of drawing the picture.I think “scenario” will be the major keyword for “synthesiology”, which is a “scenario-driven research”. When we look at the “subject”, to conduct an academic study, one standard way of science and technology is to create a model for the subject, and then conduct research based on this model. However, I don’t think “modeling of function” has been sufficiently done. Therefore, when we say “subject” and “function” are two wheels of a vehicle, it is necessary to define function modeling. Considering these and then thinking what a scenario is, I think the scenario is to connect the model and the specification for the function of artifacts. It is to consistently and rationally link these two. Modelingof koto(function)Modelingof mono(subject)SynthesiologyIntegrationscienceSpecificationforfunctionofartifactTransdisciplinarytechnology(system engineering)LogicKoto(function)SpecificationforartifactVerticalengineeringScience fordesignMono(subject)TheorizationGeneralizationSystemizationPracticalIndividualSpecificNatural lifephenomenonScience forrecognitionSciences“Transdisciplinary science and technology”+ “synthesiology”ScenarioArtifactsystemSocialvalueTransdisciplinarytechnology(system engineering) InnovativenessProgressivenessEffect on othersLarge-scalesocial issueSystemizationAdequacyRationalityUniversalitySynthesiologyIntegrationscienceSpecificationforfunctionofartifactSpecificationforartifactLogicSciencefordesignMono(subject)Koto(function)NaturallifephenomenonScienceforrecognitionEvaluation in “integration science” and “synthesiology”OrganizationArtifactsystemSocialvaluePrinciple,conceptScenarioEvaluation in “integration science” and “synthesiology”“Transdisciplinary science and technology” + “synthesiology”

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です