Conditions for survival in the manufacturing industry in VUCA era
Satoru Murakami CEO Goal-System consultants Inc.,
Agenda, an expression of my basic philosophy -2 "Doubt," "Thinking," and "Believing"
Last time, I talked about the conditions for applying TOC and the flow of environmental changes, and what TOC should be scientific for its evolution, and what even its existence should be doubted for being scientific. This time, we will consider "doubt," "thinking," and "believing" from the perspective of science and religion.
"Doubting" does not mean "denying". To be a science, we "consider" that logic is correct only when we are skeptical and "realistically" confirmed many times and still cannot be denied. In other words, doubt to make sure it is correct. However, just because it cannot be denied, it cannot be declared "correct." In other words, even if it is "considered" to be correct until today, it may not be correct tomorrow if conditions such as the environment change.
Therefore, it is "considered" to be correct, and what leaves room for doubt is scientifically "correct attitude", which leads to learning. In short, "thinking" is synonymous with science, and I think that all of our Giants have learned with this attitude. Human beings continue to "know" and "learn" only by thinking.
In general, "religion" is believed and useless in real life, and "science" is logical and brings real benefits to our lives, saying that it is logical and therefore reproducible. But in the old days, religion was also a logical and useful reproducible practice. You might think that stupid, but religion has been closely linked to politics with scientific since ancient times.
For example, religion was a powerful tool that used the calendar to carry out Shinto rituals and farming, to stabilize the harvest every year, and to enrich the hearts and lives of the people. If the operation of the calendar fails, the authority of "religion" is denied and the human mind is separated. Therefore, religion has taken a scientific and logical approach to various phenomena in order to ensure reproducibility. It is the history of religion that, while scientifically analyzing the movement of celestial bodies, we have explained the "because" between the cause and the effect, such as "everything is thanks to God, worship, and grace."
Is this attitude scientific or religious? From the point of view of our modern science, it is completely absurd, and even if it is just a superstition, the attitude of "trying to explain what actually happens" is the same as science, and "in reality. Explaining and predicting things (events) can be said to be a "theory". What we can see from this is that the difference between religion and science cannot be explained only by "logical and explainable" and "reproducible".
Human beings are social creatures and live on the basis of mutual trust. However, when it comes to new things, it is not so easy to believe, so we need "certainty (reproducibility)" to believe and "explanation (logic)" to support it.
For those who want to believe, "Under certain conditions, the result is XX, and under certain conditions, the result is □□, because when the temperature is below △ degrees, XX ?? is like this ..." In a difficult explanation, it is useless and requires a simple logic that says, "If you do XX, you will definitely get □□, because it is XX."
That is why plausible "explanations" such as "pseudoscience" are widespread in the form of taking advantage of it. In short, religion continues to provide "things that are worthy of belief (objects of faith)" in response to "human beings' desire to believe."
On the contrary, it is an activity based on "faith" that does not doubt religion, in other words, believes in "doctrinal". Therefore, the discussions that take place there must be centered around the interpretation of "how to do" rather than the question of "doctrinal". And if this happens, the environment will change, and when the applicable conditions change, it will not be possible to respond and it will decline.
In the case of science, it is important to clarify the "preconditions" on which the theory relies, rather than "who says this", and to fight the theory firmly. I think we need an attitude of accepting doubts, criticisms and disproof, and seriously discussing how tomorrow will change and how we should evolve to respond to those changes.
Because the times are VUCA, and in such a situation that you can't understand until you try it, you can't definitely secure the future. If you don't accept criticism and self-righteously show that this is the right way to do it, it's far from "scientific" and it definitely stops evolution.
Next time, I would like to talk about my idea of "consulting" from a "scientific" perspective.
