Vol.3 No.2 2010

74/86

Report : Knowledge for interdisciplinary consilience−177−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.3 No.2 (2010) 1 Issue 2. As I read the published papers and talked to the authors, I saw there were different synthesis methods in the papers, and I categorized them into three groups.is perhaps very similar to the argument for innovation. Although the road may be long, perhaps we may be able to reach a methodology for the integration of knowledge.[Question and Answer]AkamatsuDoes any of you in the audience have questions or comments for the four speakers?[Does the “artifact” include company?]AudienceThis may be a simplistic question, but is it okay to include something like a company among the artifacts? Dr. Kishimoto talked about risk. There is a way of thinking that avoiding risk will be beneficial to the citizens, and a company too faces several risks such as management issues and earthquakes. I have surveyed the standard for risk management, and the direction emphasized in the risk management standard by the companies based in Australia and New Zealand is “risk is chance”. Rather than avoiding risks, the companies can create innovations using the risk as a chance, and raise its new corporate value. As this method spreads to other companies and become commonplace, not only does the immediate corporate value increases, but the benefit is returned to the entire society. When investigated from the company’s standpoint, it isn’t entirely mathematical because the business models or somewhat incomprehensible elements enter, but can these be included in the artifacts?KishimotoI spoke about citizens when I talked about the entire Japan, in the sense that we engage in researches as public institutions. We do consider “a risk is a chance”. To capture what may be the risk in the future, to develop a method, and then to standardize the method—this will lead to the competitiveness of Japan. To do so, it is necessary to specify “for whom”. If it is specified “for the company”, the strategy for companies will be created, and we can apply the “synthesiological” framework.HaraI wrote “artifact system” in the figure, and that was proposed at the Science Council. When we considered koto or subject, it includes the social systems and the human endeavors, and I think it should be taken as a very wide-ranging concept.[Organization of knowledge integration]AudienceWhen we talk about “knowledge integration” and “synthesis”, I think we should organize the different domains of the structure of “knowledge” that are considered as a subject.First, there is the domain that can be investigated by the natural providence such as nature and the physical world. Next, there is the logical world or thinking world, and in this there may be mathematics and models. The problem is the Technologicalelement ATechnologicalelement BTypes of synthetic methodsIntegration technologyTechnologicalelement APeripheral technologyelement CIntegration technologyTechnologicalelement CTechnologicalelement BIntegration technologyMajor technologicalelement A3. Strategic selection type2. Breakthrough type1. Aufheben typePeripheral technologyelement BFirst is the “aufheben style” borrowed from the Hegelian dialectics. This is a type where different theses such as technology factor A and technology factor B are integrated, and some new concept is created.Second is the “breakthrough type”. The scientists and engineers are fairly good at this. It is a type where one’s elemental technology generates a technology that will become a key, and when the peripheral elements are bound to that technology, an integrated technology is formed and then there is a breakthrough. Actually, things are not that simple, but there are some successful cases.Third is the “strategic selection type”. Dr. Kishimoto mentioned outward and homeward passages, and when I read Dr. Kishimoto’s paper, I thought it might be this type. The exit is set first, and various elemental technologies are selected and synthesized to get there. In this case, the importance of the individual elemental technologies is similar, but a strategy is needed to select and synthesize them.Of course, there are other types, and combinations of the three types. I also think it is rather difficult to have a clean-cut categorization. What is more important is the essential leading principle when synthesizing these elemental technologies.We’ve been going around asking people to understand the objectives for launching Synthesiology and to write papers, but I don’t think we have arrived at a methodology of synthesis yet. When I do the reviews and explain the importance of scenario and synthesis of elemental technologies to the authors, I ask, “You mean this, right?” and they say, “Oh, you may be right. But I wasn’t thinking about that at all”. I think this part is similar to the argument by Dr. Hara that “‘synthesiology’ is a scenario-driven research, and the definition for function modeling is necessary”. It

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です