(“obstruction”) A
counterexample in Indian logic that invalidates an inference (anumana) by
demonstrating that the reason (hetu) given as evidence for the initial
assertion (sadhya) is not always true.
Because of the counterexample of the red-hot iron ball,
which was regarded fiery but not smoky, the conclusion that "there is
smoke because there is fire" was deemed incorrect.
Because the red-hot iron ball was part of a class of flaming
objects that didn't smoke, it demonstrated that the reason for the inference
didn't account for every occurrence of the item to be proven (sadhya)—raising
the potential that there were more.
This invalid inference fails the pervasion (vyapti)
requirement, which states that the reason must account for every possible case;
this is critical for inference validity.
Needless to say, finding such counterexamples was an
important aspect of Indian logic, since one such example may be used to refute
an opponent's argument.
See Karl H. Potter (ed. ), Presuppositions of India's
Philosophies, 1972, for more information and elaboration.
You may also want to read more about Hinduism here.
Be sure to check out my writings on religion here.
