Eiichi YAMAGUCHI Kyoto University
Innovation and Abductive Reasoning
JWLLP-23 (2017/12): The 23rd Joint Workshop on Linguistics and Language Processing
2017/12/17 Session “Sunday Abductive Reasoning and Creativity in the Context of Ba”
12:30 -13:20, December 17, 2017 8-303/304/305 Waseda University, Tokyo
1. “Abduction”
2. Error in Christensen’s Argument 3. Role of “Abduction” for Innovation
4. Case Study: Innovation of Blue LEDs 5. General Theory for Innovation
6. Can “Abduction” Be Educated ? 1. “Abduction”
2. Error in Christensen’s Argument 3. Role of “Abduction” for Innovation
4. Case Study: Innovation of Blue LEDs 5. General Theory for Innovation
6. Can “Abduction” Be Educated ?
CONTENTS
“Abduction” can characterized as follows:
1. The surprising fact, S, is observed.
2. If a hypothesis, P, were true, the fact, S, would be a matter of course.
3. Hence, there is reason to suspect that the hypothesis, P, is true.
⇒ The inferring process S → P: “Abduction”
Charles S. Pierce (1965):
Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Belknap Press, Vol.5.
“Abduction” by Pierce
Copernicus → Kepler → Newton
Copernicus’ heliocentric theory = Induction
Kepler’s abduction:
S= Brahe + Copernicus P= Kepler‘s three laws
of planetary
Newton’s abduction:
S= Kepler’s three laws of planetary P= the law of universal gravitation.
Not only the planets but the whole
universe move according to the same law.
1. “Abduction”
2. Error in Christensen’s Argument 3. Role of “Abduction” for Innovation
4. Case Study: Innovation of Blue LEDs 5. General Theory for Innovation
6. Can “Abduction” Be Educated ? 1. “Abduction”
2. Error in Christensen’s Argument 3. Role of “Abduction” for Innovation
4. Case Study: Innovation of Blue LEDs 5. General Theory for Innovation
6. Can “Abduction” Be Educated ?
CONTENTS
Hard disk drive
After “Innovator’s dilemma” by Christensen
8 inch 5.25 inch
3.5 inch
Disruptive innovation Sustaining
innovation
“Disruptive Innovation” by Christensen
Performance
Performance
Performance
demanded at the high end of the market
Time
“Disruptive Innovation” by Christensen
Product Performance
Performance demanded at the low
end of the market Disruptive
technological innovation
Def.1: Intentionally decrease the performance.
Def.2: Discover new market taking over the main.
After “Innovator’s dilemma” by Christensen
“Transistors were disruptive technologies relative to vacuum tubes. …”
Introduction, P. xvii, The innovator’s dilemma.
－Smaller HD drive
（Larger HD drive）
－Thin film head / MR head (Ferrite head)
－Transistor
（Vacuum tube）
Paradigm Disruptive Innovation
－Transistor
（Vacuum tube）
－MOSFET
（Transistor）
－HEMT
（MOSFET）
－Blue LED / LD
（all other LED / LD）
－Smaller HD drive
（Larger HD drive）
－Thin film head / MR head (Ferrite head)
－Transistor
（Vacuum tube）
Paradigm Disruptive Innovation
－Blue LED / LD
（all other LED / LD）
1. “Abduction”
2. Error in Christensen’s Argument 3. Role of “Abduction” for Innovation
4. Case Study: Innovation of Blue LEDs 5. General Theory for Innovation
6. Can “Abduction” Be Educated ? 1. “Abduction”
2. Error in Christensen’s Argument 3. Role of “Abduction” for Innovation
4. Case Study: Innovation of Blue LEDs 5. General Theory for Innovation
6. Can “Abduction” Be Educated ?
CONTENTS
Deduction
Soil
Knowledge Creation (Research)
Knowledge Embodiment (Development)
S (Existing
Knowledge）
A (Technology）
Abduction
P (Created knowledge)
New Concept: Innovation Diagram !!!
Soil
Knowledge Creation (Research)
Knowledge Embodiment (Development)
A (Existing Technology）
Abduction
P (Created
Knowledge)
Breakthrough Type 1
A’ (Paradigm Sustaining
Innovation)
Deduction
S (Existing
Knowledge）
A* (Paradigm Disruptive
Innovation) ASPA*=
Breakthrough Type 1
Field of Resonance Induction
Soil
Knowledge Creation (Research)
Knowledge Embodiment (Development)
A (Existing Technology）
Abduction
P (Created
Knowledge)
Breakthrough Type 1
A’ (Paradigm Sustaining
Innovation)
Deduction
Induction
S (Existing
Knowledge）
A* (Paradigm Disruptive
Innovation) ASPA*=
Breakthrough Type 1
Field of Resonance
Ptolemaios:
Geocentric theory
Aristotle:
geocentrism Deduction:
Astrology
Copernicus:
heliocentric theory
Induction:
Anti-thesis
Kepler: Three laws of planetary Abduction:
Astronomy Abduction:
Physics Newton:
the law of universal gravitation
Knowledge Creation (Research)
Knowledge Embodiment (Development)
Soil
Space
technology
Copernicus → Kepler → Newton, again
1. “Abduction”
2. Error in Christensen’s Argument 3. Role of “Abduction” for Innovation
4. Case Study: Innovation of Blue LEDs 5. General Theory for Innovation
6. Can “Abduction” Be Educated ? 1. “Abduction”
2. Error in Christensen’s Argument 3. Role of “Abduction” for Innovation
4. Case Study: Innovation of Blue LEDs 5. General Theory for Innovation
6. Can “Abduction” Be Educated ?
CONTENTS
InP
Ge Si
GaAs
GaP AlAs
AlSb AlP ZnTe
GaSb
InAs InSb GaN
InN AlN
SiC
2 2.5
Atomic distance / A
Bandgap (energy of emitted light) / eV non-emittable
emittable
ZnSe
infraredultraviolet
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 0.5
Wavelength of emitted light /µm
0.70.6 0.8 0.4
2 0.3
0.2
3∞ Bandgap and atomic distance for semicond.
New generation semicond.
ZnS
“Soil”
Science (crystal- lography)
Akasaki:
Challenge to lattice- mismatched crystal
growth (paradigm disruption). / 1970s
Amano & Akasaki:
Realize p-GaN
（LEEBI method）.
/1988
Nakamura et al.:
Develop InGaN LED /1992
Nakamura et al.:
Integrate three.
Matsuoka et al.: Challenge to InGaN growth.
Matsuoka et al.: Realize InGaN growth. /1989 Paradigm
sustaining innovation
ZnSeLED
Amano &
Akasaki: Realize GaN growth
(AlN buffer method) /1985
Nakamura：
By 2 flow method /1990 Nakamura: Realize
GaN growth （GaN buffer method. /1991
Nakamura &
Iwasa: Realize p- GaN （Anneal method）./199 1
Nakamura:
descend to the
“Soil”. /1989
Akasaki: Challenge to p- type GaN growth.
Existing technology for LED (IR and red)
All major farms withdrew
/1995-1997
Shimizu et al.: Realize White LED / 1996 Ogawa (CEO of
Nichia Corp.): Decide to invest /1993
Knowledge creation
Knowledge embodiment
Innovation diagram: Blue LEDs
~ 200B$ light industry / 2020
1. “Abduction”
2. Error in Christensen’s Argument 3. Role of “Abduction” for Innovation
4. Case Study: Innovation of Blue LEDs 5. General Theory for Innovation
6. Can “Abduction” Be Educated ? 1. “Abduction”
2. Error in Christensen’s Argument 3. Role of “Abduction” for Innovation
4. Case Study: Innovation of Blue LEDs 5. General Theory for Innovation
6. Can “Abduction” Be Educated ?
CONTENTS
A (Existing Technology) A’ (Paradigm Sustaining Technology)
A* (Paradigm Disruptive Technology)
B’
P P2
S
A2*
B
Type 3 Type 2
Type 1
Soil Knowledge Embodiment (Deduction)
Knowledge Creation (Abduction)
Road-mappable Type 0
General Theory for Breakthrough
Field of Resonance
Deduction
Abduction
Innovation Diagram: iPS Cells
A
Empirical biology
Wilmut Cloned
sheep / 1996
Evans Discovery of ES cells
/ 1981 P3
New innovation of bio-industry / 201?
A2*
iPS regenera- tive medicine / 201?
Yamanaka:
Human iPS / 2007
Watson & Crick Discovery of DNA / 1953 P Physics
S Empirical
medicine Biogenetics
Bio-informatics
A*
Study of differentiation / Thomson: 2006
Human ES cells / 1998
Yamanaka:
Discovery of iPS cells / 2006 P4
Yamanaka:
Initializing cells by EST
database/
1999
CiRAiPS eng. / 2010
P2 Gurdon initializing
cells by nuclear implantation
/ 1962 Embryology
1. “Abduction”
2. Error in Christensen’s Argument 3. Role of “Abduction” for Innovation
4. Case Study: Innovation of Blue LEDs 5. General Theory for Innovation
6. Can “Abduction” Be Educated ? 1. “Abduction”
2. Error in Christensen’s Argument 3. Role of “Abduction” for Innovation
4. Case Study: Innovation of Blue LEDs 5. General Theory for Innovation
6. Can “Abduction” Be Educated ?
CONTENTS
Can abduction be educated ?
1. Abduction results in paradigm disruptive innovation.
2. Abduction is a individual act (not collective) because it is triggered by serendipity.
3. Mindset to seek abduction is equivalent to the desire of existence.
4. Abduction is disturbed by undifferentiated group work of undifferentiated individuals.
5. Abduction is encouraged by “Fields of Resonance” where
differentiated individuals can make dialogs to chain inspirations.
6. Abduction is initiated by “discomfort” for existing knowledge/concept.
Hence, abduction can happen only after completely learning the existing knowledge/concept, that is, only after making thorough deduction.
Nishihira: “Educational philosophy by Zeami”
Zeami (1363-1443, co-founder of Noh 能) used
“resemble”, “not resemble”, and “can resemble”.
“resemble = imitate”. All of beginners try their best to resemble/imitate.
“not resemble”. At a certain point, students can intentionally succeed in resembling the master, and then shift the phase of “not resemble”. For instance, women can behave as women
although she does “not resemble”. Namely,
“not resemble” is to abandon the intentional act. It is similar to mindlessness.
“can resemble”. While they continue “not resemble” as it is, suddenly “can resemble”
happens. It is an unintentional and unexpected phenomenon.
Education toward “resemble” is, in fact, made to reverse toward “not resemble”. At times there, fresh language is born on the horizon without language.
Tadashi Nishihira (2009) “Educational philosophy by Zeami 世阿弥の稽古哲学”
resemble can
resemble
notresemble
Jo 序 Ha 破 Kyu 急
