Indian Logic Forum

Hemacandra · Guest 100.00 points

Inference (Anumana)

Inference (anumana) is another source of knowledge (pramana). The Jainas have mentioned uha, inductive reasoning, and sabda, scriptural authority, as separate pramanas. But these two are not relevant to our discussion, because they have a more logical than psychological significance. Inference, or anumana, is generally recognized by all the Indian systems except the Carvaka as a pramana. Inference and reasoning are expressions of thinking as an activity of the human mind. Modern psychologists have begun to take greater interest in the study of the psychology of thinking. Physiological and psychological analysis of the mechanism of thinking have been carried out by psychologists, especially the Behaviorists and the Gestalt psychologists. William James recognizes that thinking of some sort always goes on. But, as Vinacke points out, the fact of thinking presents two sets of phenomena, (i) the psychological process and (ii) the neural process. The early philosophers in the West gave prominence to thinking as a special and differentiating quality of man. Man was called homo sapiens. Aristotle said that man is a rational animal. The highest form of mental life is reasoning, which utilizes material from sense and imagination, but goes beyond them into the realm of pure ideas. Aristotle worked out a logical system of reasoning which is called traditional logic, Early Greek philosophers gave theories about reasoning as about other mental states, from logical systematization based on introspection rather than from empirical evidence in the modern sense.

A similar attitude was present in early Indian thought. The Indian philosophers were concerned with building a logical structure of reasoning and incidentally with the epistemic conditions of reasoning, rather than the psychological analysis of reasoning. The theory of knowledge and the analysis of the epistemic conditions of reasoning had for them a pragmatic value. For the Jainas, as for many other Indian philosophers, the ultimate aim was moksa. The realization of moksa is possible by right knowledge as also by right intuition and right conduct. It was, therefore, necessary for them to study the conditions and limitations of knowledge. The Jaina emphasis on the logical and epistemological problems of reasoning expresses the spirit of Indian thought. This study has to be restricted to the nature and conditions of inference as a process of thought. The psychological factors will be referred to, as also the psychological significance of the nature and conditions of inference. This has been included in the discussion because reasoning is a source of knowledge and the analysis of empirical experience would not be complete without understanding the nature and conditions of inference as a source of knowledge.

The Jainas have recognized inference (anumana), as a source of knowledge, (pramana). Most of the Indian schools of thought, with the exception of Carvaka, have given prominence to inference as a source of knowledge. The Carvakas are materialists. They contend that perception is the only pramana. As perception cannot establish a universal proposition, nor can tell us anything about the past and future, perception cannot give us knowledge of vyapti, which is the universal relation between the major and the middle term and the basis of inference. Therefore, the Carvakas say that inference is not a valid source of knowledge as it has no sound logical basis.вЂќ But the Buddhists have objected to this contention of the Carvakas. The Buddhists say that the Carvaka refutation of inference is itself a process of reasoning. Similarly, it is by inference that the Carvakas came to know that their views were different and that the other sources of knowledge were not valid. Hemacandra also says that the Carvakas have to depend on other sources of knowledge, like inference, for the validity of their contention. Since perception will not be able to cognize things in the past and future, even with regard to specific direct cognition, the Carvakas will not be in a position to determine the validity or invalidity of cognition to the satisfaction of others. Perception is subjective and so will not be able to establish the objective validity of inference. It was seen earlier that in PlatoвЂ™s Dialogue, Theetetus, Socrates examines the doctrine of knowledge through perception and shows that such a doctrine leads to the impossibility of knowledge. In the Pramanamimansa, Hemacandra says that the validity even of perception can be established only on the evidence of its unfailing correspondence with fact. Hence it follows that Carvaka must have recourse to a different source of knowledge like inference. The Buddhists have accepted inference as the other source of knowledge. In fact, the Buddhists make all non-perceptual cognition necessarily of the nature of inference.

The meaning of inference has been a difficult problem in Indian thought, though there has been general agreement on the essential nature of inference. The Jainas say that inference is mediate know ledge. It is knowledge obtained through some other knowledge. Hemacandra says that inference is the knowledge of the major term on the strength of the knowledge of the middle term. The Jainas hold that anumana is the process of knowing an unperceived object through the perception of a sign and the recollection of its invariable concomitance with that object. It is called anumana because it is the organ of subsequent (anu) cognition (mana). The knowledge of the major term which is of the nature of authentic cognition of a real fact and which arises from a middle term either observed or expressly stated, is called inference. It is really cognition which takes place subsequent to the apprehension of the middle term and the recollection of the necessary relation of the major term and the middle term. In the Jaina Tarkabhasa, a definition of inference as given in the Pramanamimansa is mentioned. The Nyaya system has worked out an elaborate system of inference. It is primarily a study of inference. Vatsyayana, in his exposition of the process of reasoning described by Gautama, asserts that the process of reasoning is extremely subtle, hard to understand and only to be understood by one of much learning and ability. Keith says that the admission of such a nature is important, because it shows how difficult were the first steps of understanding the process of reasoning. Anumana, literally, means knowledge which follows from some other knowledge. It is knowledge of an object due to the previous knowledge of some sign, linga. The previous knowledge is the knowledge of the sign which shows the universal relation between the major and the middle term. Anumdrra has been defined by the Naiyayikas as knowledge of an object not by direct perception but by means of the knowledge of a liriga, or sign, which expresses the relation between the major and the middle term. Bhasarvajna defines inference as a means of knowing a thing beyond the range of senses through its inseparable connection with another thing which lies within the range of senses. Gangesa defines inference as knowledge which is produced by some other knowledge. The object of inference is the knowledge of some fact which follows from the knowledge of some other fact. By means of anarmarra we want to know that which may not be perceived but which is indicated by previous perception. For instance, anumana leads to the knowledge of a hill having on the basis of the perception of the smoke on the hill.вЂ™

All systems of Indian thought, except the Carvaka, believe that inference is a process of arriving at truth not by direct observation but by means of knowledge of the vydpti, the universal relation between two things. The Buddhists believe that inference consists in perception of that which is known to be universally connected with another thing. Such a connection is either due to the principle of causality or to the principle of identity. According to the Vaisesikas, inference is knowledge derived from the perception of a liriga, or sign, which is uniformly connected with something else, such as cause, effect, co-effect and correlative term. The Sdmkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa and Vedanta systems define anumana as knowledge of one term of a relation which is not perceived through the knowledge of the term, but which is explicitly understood as related to the first term. In this sense, inference is a process of thought in which from something known we arrive at something unknown.

In Western thought, Miss Stebbing distinguishes inference from suggestion and recollection. However, it is difficult to distinguish precisely between those experiences in which inference is not involved and those in which it is. Psychologists do not agree as to where the line should be drawn. It is not, however, legitimate to distinguish, she says, between two kinds of inference as psychological inference and logical inference. All inference is psychological, for inference is a mental process; but its validity depends on conditions that are logical. Inference, then, may be defined as a mental process in which a thinker passes from the apprehension of something given- datum-- to the apprehension of something related to the datum in a certain way. The datum may be a sense datum, a complex perceptual situation, or a proposition. The datum of an inference can always be expressed in a proposition. Hence, inference may be said to be a mental process in which a thinker passes from one or more propositions to some other propositions connected with the former in a certain way. Western philosophers and physchologists are not agreed as to the essential marks of reasoning. On the one hand, there are philosophers who regard reason as quasi-divine and a spiritual function, while the materialists and some modern philosophers like Strong, Santayana and Russell have thought of reasoning as merely a complex process of associative reproduction essentially determined by the physicochemical process in the brain proceeding according to the purely mechanistic laws of habit. From the point of view of psychology, McDougall says that the essence of all reasoning is that a judgment and a new belief are determined by beliefs already established in the mind. If the old beliefs are true and the reasoning process correct, the new belief is true and becomes an effective guide to action. In this he includes inductive reasoning also. In the most striking cases, the new belief is derived from a complex chain of processes front a previously established belief : as when the astronomer Adams arrived at the belief that a hitherto unseen planet would be seen at a certain position in the heavens if a sufficiently powerful telescope were directed to that spot. Some modern psychologists have tried to reduce the whole thinking process to neural activity. They have made it implicit talking. But this problem is not relevant to our purpose.

Inference has been distinguished from perception. It cannot be identified with perception, although both are equally valid sources of empirical knowledge. Perception is independent of any previous knowledge, while inference depends on previous perception. It is sometimes defined by the Naiyayikas as knowledge which is preceded by perception. It is based on the perception of the relation between the middle and the major term as subsisting in the minor term. Secondly, perception is due to the contact of the sense organs with an object.

Hence, perception is limited to the cognition of the present. But in inference it is possible to get knowledge of the past and future in addition to the knowledge of the present. Perception, therefore, is direct immediate knowledge, while inference is mediate knowledge. Hemacandra says that perceptual cognition arises out of the datum present to the senses. It is incapable of taking cognizance of what has preceded and what is to follow. Therefore, it cannot discern a characteristic capable of determining the validity or invalidity of the individual cognitionвЂ™s occurring before and after. Similarly, it is not possible by means of perception to have acquaintance with what passes in other peopleвЂ™s minds. Udyotakara mentions this point when he makes a distinction between perception and inference. Perception is confined to objects of the present time and within the reach of the senses, while inference relates to past, present and future. Perception and experimental observation do involve an element of inference in that the perceived element is interpreted. Samkara says that where perception is available inference has no place. Buddhists made another distinction between perception and inference. For them, perception gives, though inexpressible in words, the peculiar character, (svalaksana) of the momentary object, while inference deals with ideal generality (samanya laksana). But the Naiyayikas do not accept this distinction. For the Naiyayikas, perception gives us knowledge of the individual in its concrete detail as well as its generality, while in inference we deal with generality only in an abstract form. For instance, we have, on the one hand, before us fire which we perceive; on the other hand, we infer the existence of fire past, present and future as generally connected with smoke.

Hemacandra · Guest 100.00 points

Types of Inference

Indian logic does not make a distinction between deductive and inductive inference as separate forms of inference. Rather, an inference is a combined deductive and inductive process. Similarly, the distinction between immediate and mediate inference is also not found. All inferences are in the form of categorical syllogisms; and they have both formal and material validity. A distinction between deductive and inductive inference is psychologically inadequate. Vinacke points out that it has become conventional to recognize two broad areas in logic: formal logic, which is called deduction; and scientific method, which is called induction. вЂ?It is now commonly recognized, however, that these distinctions break down in the actual process of reasoning, although deductive inference is often the only observable process in formal syllogistic situations. If syllogisms are extended into everyday life so that their origins can be traced, inductive processes occurвЂ™. Dewey has endeavored to rid logic of such distinctions as deductive and inductive inference, because both kinds of esquire are fundamental in science and such a distinction is possible through intellectual analysis. Even the division of inference into immediate and mediate is not psychologically sound. The process of inference is always uniform and one. It is the process of thought in which from something which is already known we arrive at something relating to something new which is not present to the senses. In this sense, immediate inference is only a brief expression of the process of inference. The main function of mediate inference is to communicate systematically oneвЂ™s own reasoning to others with a view to convincing them or rather with a view to creating similar beliefs in others. For the sake of our own knowledge and conviction it is not necessary to establish an elaborate system of reasoning in the form of syllogism. In this sense, the division of inference into immediate and mediate has no psychological significance, although it may have logical importance and validity.

In this sense also, it may be said that a distinction has been drawn, in Indian thought, between inference as inference for oneself (svartha anumana) and inference for others (parartha anumana). Almost all Indian systems have made such a distinction. In the Pramanamimamsa inference has been similarly distinguished. Inference for others is described as syllogistic in nature. Inference for oneself is subjective and вЂ?is calculated to remove personal misconceptionвЂ™, while syllogistic inference вЂ?is capable of removing the misconceptionвЂ™ of another person. Subjective inference is also based on the knowledge of the relation of the major with the middle term. Still, it needs to be expressed in elaborate syllogistic form. The Naiyayikas made three classifications of inference: (i) svartha anumana and parartha anumana; (ii) purvavat, sesavt and samanyato drstam; and (iii) kevalanvayi, kevala vyatireki and anvaya vyatireki. Keith points out that the distinction in inference as svartha and parartha was wholly unknown to Gautama and Kanada but was accepted by the Syncretist School. The classification of inference into svartha and parartha is a psychological classification which has in view the purpose which the inference serves. With reference to the purpose, all inferences are either meant for acquiring some new knowledge for oneself or for the demonstration of a known truth to others. In the svartha inference, a man seeks to reach a conclusion for himself. In parartha inference, the aim is to demonstrate the truth of the conclusion to others. The conclusion is justified with the help of the middle term. For instance, in the parartha anumama a man, having inferred the existence of fire on a hill, lays it down as a thesis and proves it for others. The other two classifications mentioned by the Naiyayikas have rather logical significance than psychological value. Regarding the distinction between the svartha and parartha anumana, it may be pointed out that inference for oneself is notional (jnanatmaka), as Dharmottara stated. Inference for others is verbal (SвЂ™abddtmaka). Keith points out that the Nyaya view of the distinction shows that, in inference as communicated by the syllogism, that is parartha inference, the hearer must perform the necessary mental operation which the teacher has already preformed and which he now helps by syllogistic exposition the hearer to perform for himself. Therefore, it can be said that the svartha inference deals with the process of inference and the parartha inference is the formal expression in syllogistic form. The first is characterized as artha_ rupatva, as Sivaditya showed, the other as sabdarupatva.

Vinacke points out that, if deduction is regarded as a method by which already existing generalizations are used, it is found that deductive situations are widely encountered in everyday life. They are not always evident as such. They often occur in a disguised and incomplete form. He says that, in general, two aspects of the problem may be distinguished. On the one hand, there are conditions under which the individual argues with other people; on the other, there are more or less public arguments to which the individual is exposed. In the first situation, we are obliged to make assertions, develop arguments and state conclusions with a view to communicating and demonstrating them to others. In the second type of situations, we find ourselves reading in the newspapers or magazines arguments presented implicitly or explicitly in deductive form. In all such situations the rules of logic are valuable grounds for valid arguments. Although this distinction between the two deductive situations presented by Vinacke does not exactly correspond to the svartha and parartha anumana, the analysis of the first situation corresponds to Parartha anumana. Parartha anumana expresses itself in elaborate argument in syllogistic form.

Hemacandra · Guest 100.00 points

Conditions of Inference

The aim of inference is to attain some new knowledge of a thing on the basis of whatever has been already known. It arises out of the necessity to know something more, as also out of doubt and anxiety regarding the thing to be known. Where perception is available, inference is not necessary, because we need not reflect much to know objects present to our senses. Inference is not possible regarding either things unknown or things definitely known. It functions only with regard to things that are doubtful. Doubt is a condition of inference. It implies not only absence of certain knowledge about something, but also a positive desire or will to know it. Modern Naiyayikas do not accept this view, because, they say, there may be inference even when there is no doubt and in the presence of certainty. Similarly, there may be inference even when there is no will to infer. The inference aims at proving that which is yet unproved, as there is a desire to prove the object. At the same time, as Hemacandra says, it is incapable of being contradictory. Therefore, it is generally accepted by all schools that a logical discourse does not come into play in regard to matters which are unknown or definitely established. That a state of doubt is a motive of inference is very often recognized in psychology and philosophy. Doubt sets us thinking and gives rise to efforts towards the solution of a problem. The Jaina philosophers, in fact all Indian philosophers, have stated that desire to know is an additional factor for inference. So, too, Miss Stebbing shows that doubt is a psychological condition of inference.

Inference consists in establishing the relation between the major and the minor term. Knowledge of such a relation depends on the knowledge of the vyapti, universal relation between the major and the middle term. Knowledge of the major term, which is of the nature of authentic cognition of a real fact and which arises out of the middle term either observed or expressly stated, is in fact called inference. It is a cognition which takes place subsequent to the apprehension of the middle term (linga grahana) and the recollection of the vyapti. Regarding the vyapti Das Gupta points out that the Jainas, like the Buddhists, prefer antarvyapti (e. g., relation between smoke and fire) to bahirvyapti (relation between the place containing smoke and the place containing fire). The Buddhists showed that vyapti may be based on essential identity, causality, tadatmya and tadutpatti. Experience cannot be the sure ground of vyapti. But the Vedantins make it the result of inductive generalizations based on simple enumeration. The Naiyayikas agree with the Vedantins in showing that vyapti is established on the basis of uncontradicted experience.

Just as inference depends on the knowledge of the vyapti, it also depends on the knowledge of the relation between the middle and the minor term. This is often called paksa dharmata. In inference, the minor term becomes related to the major through its relation to the middle term. Chatterjee points out that, while the validity of the inference depends on vyapti, the possibility of inference depends on the relation of the minor with the middle term which is also called paksata. Vypti is the logical ground of inference, while paksata is the psychological ground of inference. Kesava Misra explains the process of inference as follows: In the first stage the operation leads to the perception of invariable connection between the major and the middle term. This is arrived at from frequent observations of the occurrence of the two in the past.

For instance, smoke is observed on a hill. We then remember the relation which perception has established between smoke and fire. This gives rise to reflection in the form that there is on the hill smoke, which is always accompanied by fire. Then we arrive at the inference that there is fire on the hill. Keith points out that this value of the conception of inference as a mental process is enforced in minute detail by the Nyaya school. From another point of view, stress is laid on the fact that the subject, the minor term, must be something regarding which there is a desire to establish something else. This desire may be for oneвЂ™s own satisfaction or for that of others. Bosanquet also considers such a mental activity of inferring as the decisive feature of inference.

The conditions of inference have been discussed by modern Western logicians. Russell seems to think that the psychological element of our knowledge of the propositions and their relations, is not a necessary condition of inference. Validity of inference mostly depends on the logical condition of the implication between propositions. We infer one proposition from another in virtue of a relation between two propositions вЂ?whether we perceive it or notвЂ™. The mind, in fact, is as purely receptive in inference as commonsense supposes it to be in perception. of sensible objects. But W. E. Johnson and Miss Stebbing have recognized both the psychological and the logical conditions of inference. The logical conditions consist in the relation between the propositions. They are called вЂ? the constitutive conditionsвЂ™. The psychological conditions have been called вЂ?the epistemic conditionsвЂ™ of inference. They refer to the relation of the propositions to what the thinker may happen to know. Earlier in the chapter, Johnson says that inference is a mental process which, as such, has to be contrasted with implication. The connection between the mental act of inference and the relation of implication is analogous to that between assertion and proposition. Miss Stebbing also shows that inference involves both the constitutive and the epistemic conditions. The epistemic conditions relate to what the thinker who is inferring knows.

The question regarding the special cause of inference (karana) that brings about the conclusion in inference, has been discussed by Indian logicians. According to the Buddhists, the Jainas and some Naiyayikas, it is the knowledge of the liriga, the middle term, that leads to the conclusion. The middle term known as such is to be taken as the karaha or operative cause of inference. R. S. Woolworth says that reasoning very often depends on the use of the middle term. The Mimansakas and the Vedantins believe that the knowledge of vyapti is a cause of inference. According to them, the knowledge of the universal relation between the major and the minor term is received in our mind when we see the liriga or the middle term as related to the paksa or the minor term.

This leads to the conclusion. But according to the modern Naiyayikas, liege or the middle term cannot be the operative cause of inference. It cannot lead to the conclusion except through the knowledge of vyapti. Hence, they say that the knowledge of vyapti should be taken as a special ground (karana), of inference. Vyapti does directly lead to the conclusion. It has for its function the synthetic view of the middle term as related to the major term, on the one hand, and of the minor term, on the other. This is liriga paramarsa. In this, the middle term is considered thrice. Hence, it is maintained by the modern Naiyayikas that, while knowledge of the vyapti is a special cause of inference, linga paramarsa is the immediate cause of the conclusion. Some modern Naiyayikas, in fact, say that linga paramarsa is the operative cause of the conclusion. BradleyвЂ™s analysis of inference presents a similar picture. The premises, or the data, and the process of inference consist in joining them into a whole by ideal construction. However, as Chatterjee points out, liriga paramarsa is not an essential condition of all inference although it may make an inference most cogent and convincing. In the case of inference for oneself, we do not require more than the major and the minor premise to arrive at the conclusion. There is a natural transition of thought from the premises to the conclusion. In the case of inference for others, we have to state the identity of the middle term occurring in the two premises and exhibited in the third premise which relates the same middle term to the minor and major terms.

Thus, it is generally agreed that inference is a mental process, and the validity of inference is based on psychological and logical grounds. The validity of inference depends on the knowledge of the universal relation between the major and the middle term. It is also based on the perception of the relation between the middle term and the minor. Perception of the minor term as related to the middle term, and the recollection of the universal relation between the major and the middle term, lead to the conclusion of the relation between the minor term and the major. This is the picture of the psychological ground of inference as presented by the Jainas and other Indian philosophers. McDougall showed that all deductive reasoning involves appreciative synthesis, although it is merely association. It is a process of вЂ?mediate apperceptionвЂ™. In fact, he says, all types of reasoning are processes of вЂ?mediate apperceptionвЂ™. They all make use of the вЂ?middle termвЂ™, and this use oi the middle term is the sole and essential feature of reasoning, in which it differs from other mental processes.

Hemacandra · Guest 100.00 points

Structure of the Syllogism

All systems of Indian philosophy agree in holding that the syllogism represents the typical form of expressing inference for others. However, logicians are not agreed as to the number of propositions constituted in a syllogism. Propositions are called avayavas. Some logicians say that there are ten propositions in a syllogism. For instance, according to the old Naiyayikas and also according to some Jaina logicians like Bhadrabhahu, a syllogism consists of ten propositions. But Vatsyayana states that all the ten members of syllogism are not logically necessary, although they may express the psychological process of inference. Logicians generally agree that a syllogism has five members. Gautama mentioned five members of the syllogism: (i) pratijnd the first statement, or an assertion of what is to be proved, for instance, вЂ?the hill is fieryвЂ™, is pratijiza. It sets forth the thesis of enquiry. The suggestion presented controls the process of inference from the very start; (ii) hetu, states the presence of the middle term. It gives the ground (sadhana), or the means of truth. For instance, it states dhurnat, вЂ?because of smokeвЂ™; (iii) udaharana states the universal relation between the major and the middle term and gives examples in support of its contention. It is a combination of the deductive and inductive processes. It may be compared to AristotleвЂ™s major premise with the establishment of the universal proposition by means of examples. It presents an inductive process in stating examples. Dr. Seal writes that the third member of the syllogism combines and harmonizes MillвЂ™s view of the major premise as a brief memorandum of like instances already observed with the Aristotelian view of it as universal proposition and a formal ground of induction; (iv) upanaya, the application of a universal proposition with its examples to the subject for the minor term of the inference. It may be called the minor premise of the syllogism. This may be affirmative or negative; (v) nigamana, the conclusion; it states, вЂњtherefore the hill is on fireвЂќ. What is provisionally presented in the pratijna is finally accepted in the conclusion. The Samkhya and Vaisesika systems accept the five membered syllogism. But the Mimamsakas and the Vedantins do not accept the five membered syllogism. According to them, a syllogism does not require more than three members to carry conviction. The two essential conditions of valid inference are the vyapti and the paksa dharmata, the presence of the middle term and the minor term. Therefore, they contend, the three propositions would be sufficient to give full force to the syllogistic inference. The three propositions may be the first three like pratijna, hetu and udaharana, or they may be the last three, like uddharana, upauaya and nigamana. The Buddhists go further than the Mimarnsakas and reduce the syllogism to two propositions only. This is analogous to the enthymeme in Western logic.

Among the Jaina logicians, Bhadrabahu seems to be in favour of ten membered syllogisms, as we have mentioned earlier. In his Anasyaka Niryukti he describes the ten propositions constituting a syllogism. They are constituted by the pratijiid, hetu and their vibhakti and vipaksa. Similarly, nka;iksa and akanksa pratisedha are the constituent propositions in such a syllogism. Radhakrishnan says that Bhadrabahu here adopts the double method of proof. When an argument is put forward, for instance, to prove the nor.-eternity of sound, the counterproposition is asserted and denied by means of the statement. How ever, Bhadrabahu says that the number of propositions in a syllogism depends on the caliber of the person to whom it is addressed. Accordingly, it may be a ten-membered syllogism or a five-membered syllogism. Neither of these alternatives need be rejected. вЂ?We reject neitherвЂ™. In the Pramanamimamsa, Hemacandra describes the nature of the five propositions constituting a syllogism. BhadrabahuвЂ™s contention that the extent of the constituent propositions depends on the ability of the persons to whom it is addressed, has great psychological importance. It implies that the inference is limited by the capacity of the individualвЂ™s understanding of the argument presented. Siddhasena Divakara mentions five members in a syllogism. However, Das Gupta says that, regarding inference, the Jainas hold that it is not necessary to have five propositions in a syllogism. It is only the first two propositions that actually enter into the inferential process. (vide Prarneya kamalarrurrtanda, pp. 108-109.). When we make an inference, we do not proceed through the five propositions. A syllogism consisting of five propositions is rather for explaining a matter to a child than for representing the actual state of the mind in making an inference.

AristotleвЂ™s syllogism is a purely formal and deductive form of inference. We have seen that, in Indian thought, a distinction between deductive and inductive inference is not made. An inference in Indian thought is both formally and materially true. AristotleвЂ™s syllogism begins with the major premise, and then it proceeds to apply the universal proposition to a particular case. According to the Jainas and also in all Indian thought, we first get the pratijna or the proposition to be proved. From the psychological point of view, we do not, in fact, proceed in AristotleвЂ™s way. We do not begin with the universal proposition and then apply the universal proposition to a particular case, unless it is to be a deliberate form of reasoning formally presented. It would be psychologically correct to say that we first begin by stating what is to be proved, and then find reasons to prove it. AristotleвЂ™s syllogism has more of a logical than a psychological status. W. E Johnson says that it is commonly supposed that premises are propositions first presented in thought, and that the transition from these to the thought of the conclusion is the last step in the process. вЂ?But, in fact, the reverse is usually the case, that is to say, we first entertain in thought the proposition that is technically called the conclusion and then proceed to seek for other propositions which would justify us in asserting it. A conclusion may, on the one hand, first present itself to us as potentially assertable, in which case the mental process of inference consists in transforming what was potentially assertable into a proposition actually assertedвЂ™.

Source