Editing Nyaya (section)

===''Anumāna'' (inference)===
''Anumāna'' (inference) is one of the most important contributions of the Nyāya. It can be of two types: inference for oneself (''Svarthanumana'', where one does not need any formal procedure, and at the most the last three of their 5 steps), and inference for others (''Parathanumana'', which requires a systematic methodology of 5 steps). Inference can also be classified into 3 types: ''Purvavat'' (inferring an unperceived effect from a perceived cause), ''Sheshavat'' (inferring an unperceived cause from a perceived effect) and ''Samanyatodrishta'' (when inference is not based on causation but on uniformity of co-existence). A detailed analysis of error is also given, explaining when anumana could be false.<ref name=c/>

====Theory of inference====
The methodology of inference involves a combination of induction and deduction by moving from particular to particular via generality. It has five steps, as in the example shown:<ref>{{Citation |last=Dasti |first=Matthew R. |title=Nyāya |publisher=[[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |url= https://iep.utm.edu/nyaya/ |access-date=2021-12-07 }}</ref><ref name="TS-AB">{{cite book |last1=Vidyasagara |first1=Pandit Jibananda |title=Tarkasangraha by Annabhatta |date=1872 |publisher=Sarasudhanidhi Press |location=Calcutta |page=24 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9bkIAAAAQAAJ |access-date=31 May 2022}}</ref>
* There is fire on the hill (called ''Pratijñā'', required to be proved)
* Because there is smoke there (called ''Hetu'', reason)
* Wherever there is smoke, there is fire, e.g. in a kitchen (called ''Udāhārana'', example of vyāpti)
* The hill has smoke that is pervaded by fire (called ''Upanaya'', reaffirmation or application)
* Therefore, there is fire on the hill (called ''Nigamana'', conclusion)

In Nyāya terminology for this example, the hill would be the ''paksha'' (minor term),<ref name="TS-AB"/>{{rp|31}} the fire is the ''sādhya'' (major term),<ref name="TS-AB"/>{{rp|21}} the smoke is ''hetu'',<ref name="TS-AB"/>{{rp|31}} and the relationship between the smoke and the fire is ''[[vyapti]]''(middle term).<ref name="TS-AB"/>{{rp|19}}

Hetu further has five characteristics<ref name="Matilal">{{cite book |last1=Matilal |first1=Bimal Krishna |title=Logic, Language and Reality: Indian Philosophies and Contemporary Issues |date=1 January 2008 |publisher=Motilal Banarsidass |location=Delhi |isbn=978-81-208-0008-3 |page=43 |edition=2nd |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UkwvEAAAQBAJ |access-date=31 May 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

* It must be present in the ''Paksha'' (the case under consideration), 
* It must be present in all positive instances (''sapaksha'', or homologues),
* It must be absent in all negative instances
* It must not be incompatible with an established truth, (''abādhitatva'')
* Absence of another evidence for the opposite thesis (''asatpratipakshitva'')

==== Inference Fallacies (''hetvābhasa'') ====
The fallacies in Anumana (''hetvābhasa'') may occur due to the following<ref name="Jadunath">{{cite book |last1=Sinha |first1=Jadunath |title=Introduction to Indian Philosophy |date=1949 |publisher=Lakshmi Narain Agarwal |location=Agra |pages=53–58 |edition=1st |url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.17403/page/n63/mode/2up}}</ref>

#''Asiddha'': It is the unproved ''hetu'' that results in this fallacy.
#*''Ashrayasiddha'': If Paksha [minor term] itself is unreal, then there cannot be locus of the hetu. e.g. The sky-lotus is fragrant, because it is a lotus like any other lotus.
#*''Svarupasiddha'': Hetu cannot exist in paksa at all. E.g. Sound is a quality, because it is visible.
#*''Vyapyatvasiddha'': Conditional hetu. `Wherever there is fire, there is smoke'. The presence of smoke is due to wet fuel.
#''Savyabhichara'': This is the fallacy of irregular hetu.
#*''Sadharana'': The hetu is too wide. It is present in both sapaksa and vipaksa. `The hill has fire because it is knowable'.
#*''Asadharana'': The hetu is too narrow. It is only present in the Paksha, it is not present in the Sapaksa and in the Vipaksha. `Sound is eternal because it is audible'.
#*''Anupasamhari'': Here the hetu is non-exclusive. The hetu is all-inclusive and leaves nothing by way of sapaksha or vipaksha. e.g. 'All things are non-ternal, because they are knowable'.
#''Satpratipaksa'': Here the hetu is contradicted by another hetu. If both have equal force, then nothing follows. 'Sound is eternal, because it is audible', and 'Sound is non-eternal, because it is produced'. Here 'audible' is counterbalanced by 'produced' and both are of equal force.
#''Badhita'': When another proof (as by perception) definitely contradicts and disproves the middle term (hetu). 'Fire is cold because it is a substance'.
#''Viruddha'': Instead of proving something it is proving the opposite. 'Sound is eternal because it is produced'.