The Science and Art Of Decision Making

Abstract

Decision makers of today routinely encounter increasingly complex and interrelated problems, preceding the necessity for a large number of significant decisions to be dynamic in nature. Frequently rather than a single decision the requirement of a number of decisions exists, conventionally being interdependent on each other in an environment of progressive change. For thousands of years people have endeavoured to document observations of the environment and surroundings, with the aspiration of comprehending situations, which in turn enable a form of anticipation or prediction of the future. Through the contributions of a range of scientists and philosophers' humanity has affected the achievement of an improved quality of life, commencement of influence on the essence of life and encouragement to attempt to gain even further knowledge through travel to other planets. Without any doubt science is exceptional and dynamic and by far the optimum means of discovering the world and all that it encompasses. What hasn't changed is the curiosity, imagination and intelligence of those doing science [1]. Despite the fact that scientific discoveries and inventions invariably enhance life to a large degree as well as being accredited with expanding the expected lifespan of humans, scientific and technological improvements may equally precipitate alienation, loss of privacy, environmental problems (chemical and electronic waste), and a greater uncertainty or a black swan event. Science is perceived to be subject about knowledge with curiosity lying at the heart of it, differing from technology in that technology is preferably explained as doing. The 19th century scientist Pierre Laplace elevated determinism to a key place in science. He linked determinism and the ability to predict to the very notion of success in science [2]. For technical decisions science is an unrivalled tool to use, however, for managerial, institutional and personal daily life decisions the same recommendation cannot be given. Numerous key systems incorporated in the life of humans exhibit diverse complexities. Markets compromised of various buyers and sellers all categorized in groups participating in mutual funds, economies with hierarchies of workers, departments, firms, and industries; multi-celled organisms consisting of proteins, membranes, organelles, cells, and organs, the internet with users, stations, servers, and websites. Each of these complex systems exhibits a distinctive property called “emergence” roughly described by a phrase “the whole is more than the sum of the actions of the parts [3]. Scientists depend on the law of rationality; however, the fact that emotion habitually dominates humans on innumerable occasions is well recognized. Perhaps a more effective method for solving the problems of humanity should include deciphering the laws of human nature. As an alternative to the law of rationality, consideration could be given to whether it is preferable for scientists use the law of bounded rationality which may entail radical paradigm shift in scientific studies. The fundamental gap between the explicit accomplishments of knowledge acquisition in the natural sciences versus the rather minimal successes in understanding the dynamics of the social realm is the inherent nonlinearity, instability, and uncertainty of behaviour consistent with social systems. However, the possibility that an alternative strategy exists to close this gap is highly feasible. This article aims at showing the justification for the discarding the rule of rationality assumption in engagement and comprehension of scientific studies, and as a substitute insert human behaviours and emotions. Our emotional self is the principal power behind our creativity and passion and constitutes humanity. Controlling the nature may be easier than controlling the human nature. Today the study of chaos, and systemic thinking (emphasis is given to complexity, networks and patterns of organization) has emerged at the forefront of natural sciences too. Disquiet exists concerning events that may lead to the destruction of our civilization even the elimination of life on Earth. In 2050 the World population will reach 9.7 billion. There is also an urgent need to introduce eco-ethical standards into science. Decision making is not merely a science; there is a requisite for creative and individuality aspects of it to be examined. In the development of technologies, the human nature, psychological and sociological impacts of these technologies must be analysed in a holistic way. The main aim of the paper is to show that decision making especially under uncertainty is partly scientific partly heuristic or artistic phenomenon. The art side of decision making shouldn't be expelled from science.