I’m currently reading an interesting book (will post a review at a later date) which gives an interesting tidbit about the Indian system of Logic. The system that comes closest to the Western model of analytical philosophy is called Nyaya.

The tidbit I present here has to do with Inference as was exposited by ancient Indian scholars. The Wikipedia entry on Inference introduces the topic quite interestingly:

To infer is to draw a conclusion based on what one already knows and on that alone. Suppose you see rain on your window – you can infer from that, quite trivially, that the sky is grey. Looking out the window would have yielded the same fact, but through a process of perception, not inference (note however that perception itself can be viewed as an inferential process).

Inference is known by the name of Anumana in the Indian system of logic. Some terms might be of aid in understanding the concept of Anumana:

Hetu=A logical reason, cause, or reason for inference
Sadhya=An object to be accomplished or a thing to be proved
Drishtanta=An example, citing of an event, or a story/anecdote
Nigamana= the summing up of an argument or conclusion in a syllogism

Here is an illustration: I see smoke on the mountain. Therefore, I infer that there’s fire on the mountain. This is because I have earlier seen in my kitchen (not the modern “smokeless” kitchens!) that smoke and fire go hand in hand. Now the interesting part lies in the deduction. In this case:

Hetu=smoke
Sadhya=fire
Drishtanta=kitchen

Taken together, we get this: the Sadhya is shown by the Hetu by giving Drishtanta as the evidence.