Our Fundamental Error - Part 3 of 11

[Guest guest]

Inference

 

Before inference can occur, there needs to be some valid data which is

itself gathered directly or indirectly through direct perception.

Otherwise, the inference could only be a speculation or imagination. For

example one could not infer the age of the Moon just by looking at it and

estimating it. Data must be collected first e.g. rocks could be brought

back and carbon dated.

 

Four aspects are involved in the process of inference. These are the subject

or 'locus' of the discussion, the objective or 'conclusion' - that which is

to be inferred or concluded, a 'basis' for the argument and finally an

'analogy'. An example given in the scriptures is the inference that there

is a fire on a mountain because one is able to see smoke there, just as one

can in a kitchen. Here, the mountain is the 'locus'; to infer that there is

a fire on the mountain is the 'conclusion'; the 'basis' is that smoke can be

seen and the 'analogy' is that when one sees smoke in the kitchen, it is

invariably associated with fire.

 

The 'locus' has to be something that is partly visible and partly unknown;

otherwise, it cannot be a matter of dispute. Whether or not there is a fire

on the mountain is not visible or known - hence the dispute. Since we cannot

see whether or not there is a fire, we must use inference. The

'conclusion' - that there is a fire on the mountain - is not observable or

directly provable. The 'basis' is that smoke can be seen and it is on the

mountain. This 'basis' is observable. Thus, in the example, the 'locus' and

the 'basis' are both visible while that which is to be inferred, the

'conclusion' is invisible.

 

In order for the 'analogy' to be valid, both 'conclusion' and 'basis' have

to always be experienced simultaneously with the same locus in those

examples that have been directly perceived, i.e. on which the inference is

based. In this case, the listener is aware that fire invariably exists with

the smoke when it is encountered in the kitchen. (It has to be this way

around and not that smoke invariably occurs when there is fire.)

 

In order to use inference them, one has to have a basic knowledge of the

relationship between the conclusion and the basis, which has been gathered

through perception. Here, the knowledge is that wherever there is smoke,

there is fire. Once this concomitant relationship has been established

through repeated observation, only then can it be used to infer that same

relationship in a situation where the conditions cannot be directly

perceived. Also, direct perception forms the basis for the implied

relationship from which the inference is drawn.

 

Also, an inference can only be made about a specific object if the

perceptible data has been gathered from that object. For example one cannot

make conclusions about Mars if the data has been collected from the Moon.

All observable data derive from the perceptible universe. The aatman is not

perceivable. From this, it follows that, by using scientific observation

one cannot arrive at any conclusions about the aatman. Hence, the whole of

scientific reasoning is called 'commonplace inference' and can only deal

with objects that can be perceived. 'Commonplace inference' has no access to

knowledge of the aatman. To attempt to do so is like trying to hear through

the eyes and constitutes an invalid means of knowledge.

 

Instead of using data collected through the senses, inference may also make

use of data collected from the shaastra-s. Here, inferences may be made

about the nature of the aatman, since this is the subject of the shaastra-s.

The implication of this is that the shaastra-s must be accepted as a valid

source of observation. Once this has been done, the validity of the data

need not be questioned, although different theories maybe put forth to

explain the same data. The theories may be incorrect but not the

observations. All of the aastika philosophies have accepted the shaastra-s

as a valid source; they have just reached differing conclusions. Without

valid data, there is no basis for inference, only speculation or belief.

Since the basis for inference based on the shaastra-s assumes that the

shaastra-s are a valid means of knowledge, this method is only applicable to

aastika philosophies. The naastika-s do not accept the shaastra-s. Therefore

the Brahmasuutra is of no value to them.

 

Inference or logic, which is based upon perception, could be called

scientific reasoning. This is still used in the Brahmasuutra though, as

noted above, it cannot make any statements about the aatman. Equally, it

cannot be used to disprove Vedantic teaching. This is a mistake that many

naastika philosophers make. The Brahmasuutra uses the same technique to

disprove their claims. (They would not accept inference based upon the

shaastra-s in any case.) It is also used to show that Vedanta is not

illogical. In fact, it is beyond the realm of logic. ………end of Part 3

 

Dennis