A erroneous argument
is referred to as Hetvabhasa.
Certain requirements must be satisfied for a valid inference
(anumana), otherwise the inference will be invalid.
The accepted form of an inference has three central terms:
the first is a hypothesis (pratijna), which includes a subject class (paksha)
and a thing to be proved (sadhya); the second is a reason (hetu), which
provides evidence for the hypothesis; and the third is examples (drshtanta),
which provide additional evidence for the hypothesis.
In the standard example, the hypothesis that "there is
fire on this mountain" makes a specific claim (sadhya) about a specific
class of objects (paksha), specifically this mountain.
The explanation (hetu) "because there is smoke on this
mountain" is given in the second portion of the inference, which
simultaneously makes a claim about the subject class—this mountain.
One need for a valid inference is that the subject class
falls inside the reason supplied, such that the reason applies to it in all
situations.
The subject class and the explanation stated are clearly
separated in the phrase "there is fire on this mountain because there is
smoke on that mountain." The most fundamental criteria for a valid
inference, however, is that the explanation supplied must account for every
instance of the item to be proven, and it cannot be explained in any other
manner.
This is termed as pervasion (vyapti) and is an important hetu
test.
Because smoke was always created by fire, the Indian
logicians claimed that asserting that smoke suggested the existence of fire was
a reasonable conclusion.
The assertion that fire entailed the existence of smoke, on
the other hand, was incorrect.
This was due to the logicians' ability to find an instance
in which fire was not always accompanied by smoke, thus failing the “pervasion”
requirement—the example of the red-hot iron ball, which was regarded fiery but
not smoky.
An upadhi (“obstruction”) is the name for this kind of
counterexample.
It reveals that the hetu fails to permeate the sadhya since
there is a class of flaming objects that do not smoke, and so proves that the
hetu fails to pervade the sadhya.
Karl H. Potter (ed. ), Presuppositions of India's
Philosophies, 1972, has further information.
You may also want to read more about Hinduism here.
Be sure to check out my writings on religion here.
