________________
116
SOME PROBLEMS IN JAINA PSYCHOLOGY
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.
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. '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 occur'.54 Dewey has endeavoured to rid logic of such distinctions as deductive and inductive inference, because both kinds of enquiry 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 one'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 (svārtha anumāna) and inference for others (parārtha anumāna). Almost all Indian systems have made such a distinction. In the Pramānamīmaṁsā inference has been similarly distinguished. Inference for others is described as syllogistic in nature. Inference for oneself is subjective and is calculated to remove personal misconception', while
54 Vinacke (L. E.): The Psychology of Thinking, Ch. VI, p. 76.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
