MODULE I

UNIT –II

1. Diverse ways in Research Methodology

Multifarious disciplines of knowledge have multitudes of methods of study and ways of conducting
research. While no research methodology is unique or exclusively applicable to particular discipline,
overlapping use of different methods and combination of several methods in particular research has
resulted. Relating to the line of reasoning and steps of critical thoughts, thinkers have contributed in
their own way from the ancient times to the present day. Rich knowledge system prevalent in ancient
India was built through systematic approach in enquiry into deeper philosophical levels preceded by the
interaction between the pros and cans, thesis and antithesis. Discussion on various steps of reflective
thinking carried on by John Dewey and Kelly has brought out dependable methods of undertaking a
research work. It tells convincingly about systematizing the thought process in any study, inquiry and a
problem solving task. The scientific method put forward by eminent scientists and researchers lays focus
on the procedure of scientific investigation in pure, applied and social sciences. The deductive and
inductive methods of reasoning , their alternative application for evolving theory and the intellectual
leap in drawing inferences have also emerged amidst these methods and procedures. There is not a
single formula or one proven norm of research. Even in executing it by collection of data also there are
various methods. But amidst these procedures, a common stream flows: viz commitment to discovery of
truth, concentration on a specific problem, guess of a possible solution or answer, verification of such
initial formulation and evolution of a theory. It is only the order or sequence of steps in the procedure
that vary.

2. Ancient Indian approach to research

Links amidst knowledge, truth and moral perfection
Ancient Indian seers regarded knowledge and moral perfection as necessary to each other, and hence
tried to develop the knowledge system by careful reasoning process. Knowledge connotes correct
cognition (prama), supported by source of knowledge called pramana. Mimamsists have different views
about the relation between knowledge and truth. Prabhakara views knowledge as self revealing and
truth, self-certified. Kumarila regards knowledge as imperceptible and its ascertainment and discovery
as being made with the help of inference. Murari Misra thinks that both knowledge and truth are
revealed by introspection. Gangesha criticizes these views as contradicting experience as there could be

1
no scope for doubt in case of self-validated knowledge, and holds that the doubt or misgiving is to be
dispelled only by means of verification by another piece of knowledge. Since God himself is an
embodiment of truth (Satyam jnanamanantham brahmam – Upanishad; Evam divastraya ekadashasaha
satyaah satyasya dadrishe purasthat – Rigveda; satyam shivam sundaram), devotion to God implied
raising the level of knowledge to the heights of truth. Ancient thinkers distinguished between apara
vidya – lower knowledge- and paravidya (higher knowledge). While lower knowledge is obtained
through perception and direct experience, higher knowledge is developed by knowing the truth of
existence from within. It is peculiar of Indian epistemology that sources of knowledge are numerous; the
reasoning process is argumentative and systematic; and the aim of equating knowledge with truth and
with god is unique. Knowledge becomes unrivalled and sacred due to this approach. (Nahi jnanesha
sadrisham pavitramiha vidyate- Bhagavadgita). On these counts, it is quite ahead of the western
tradition, which bases knowledge in perception and inference only.
Sources of knowledge
Ancient Indian epistemology was well developed one, by comprehending all sources of knowledge and
by using the method of rightly building the knowledge system. Going beyond mere observations through
sensory organs, developing the body of knowledge by reasoning and inferring through logical process
was known to them. About the method of inferences also they had developed refined techniques.
PRATYAKSHA
The First source of knowledge, perception or pratyaksha, is admitted as basic by all the schools. The
Carvakas hold inference as not reliable and perception alone as the source of true knowledge. Getting
authoritative support for each proposition is gathered from the first hand perception from five external
senses (indriyas)- sound (sabda), sight (darshana), touch (sparsha), taste (rasa), and smell(vasana)- and
one internal faculty, mind(manas). Samkhya yoga school holds that contact of the object with any one of
the sense is necessary for external perception which modifies internal sense (Chitta, antakarana and
buddi). Naiyayikas regard that when immediate knowledge on the basis of sensory perception does not
emerge, yogic perception may bring essential perception. Advaitins consider that every perception
removes some or other ignorance that divides the known from the known. Buddhists view that
perception reveals unique characters of objects and that their class characters, names and features are
superimposed by the judging mind. Thus, intelligent perception involves application of mind to guard
our self against errors.
ANUMANA

2
The second source of knowledge is inference or anumana. All schools other than Carvakas believe that it
is not impossible to establish universal propositions with the help of inductive methods. Anumana is a
kind of knowledge derived from previous knowledge. For example, the inference about existence of fire
that we are drawing from smoke emitting from mountain is based on our previous knowledge about
relation between smoke and fire. Buddhist logicians developed five steps method (panchakarani) of
observation or inductive reasoning: (i) Cause is not perceived, effect is also not perceived: (ii) Cause is
perceived: (iii) Effect is also perceived; (iv) Cause disappears; and (v) Effect also disappears.
Naiyayikas referred to four methods of observation to explain causal and non-causal (for eg. All animals
with horns have tails) connections; (a) observation of agreement in presence (anvaya) – (for e.g. by
repeated observation about smoke and fire); (b) observation of agreement in absence (vyatirekha )
[Where there is no fire, there is no smoke]; (c) method of agreement in presence only (kevala anvaya)
[All namable things are knowable things; and (d) method of agreement in absence (kevala vyatirekha)
[Example: In examining in which of the panchabhutas the factor of smell is present, we go on observing
by reference to ether, air, fire and water. By finding negative answer in all these instances, and by
finding positive answer in case of earth, we conclude that earth is the only element having smell].
Three kinds of inferences that Gautama spoke are: (i) purvavat, or inference from cause to effect
(e.g. gathering clouds yield rain); (ii) sesavat or inference from effect to cause (e.g. flood in the river is
due to rainfall up-stream); and (iii) samanyatodrishta or inference from non causal type of relation (e.g.
changing position of the sun is related to the movement of sun).
For the purpose of demonstrating a conclusion based on inference, Gautama lays down five steps
procedure. Without distraction of material or formal fallacies, the point is to be proved or disproved by
meticulously observing the following procedure.
(1) State the proposition to be proved (pratijna); e.g. ‘That hill has fire’.
(2) State the reason in support (hetu). e.g.‘Because it has smoke’.
(3) State the invariable relation between the sign and the signified by some concrete
instant guaranteeing material validity (udaharana).
e.g.: Whatever has smoke has fire, as in the case of fire place.
(4) Show how the above relation applies to the case in hand (upanaya)
e.g. ‘This hill has smoke which is invariably accompanied by fire’.
(5) Draw the conclusion (nigamana) e.g. Therefore, the hill has fire.

3
 Brijendranath Seal considers this as involving deductive – inductive process. Keeping truth as
the goal of all arguments, even quibbling and false arguments or arguments merely for the sake of
victory should be entertained in the reasoning process.
SABDA
The third source of knowledge is testimony, authority or sabda. Unlike western logicians or Carvakas
who think that knowledge from authority is also a kind of inference, Naiyayikas and others give separate
status to testimony or authority different from inference. In order that verbal statement (sabda) yields
knowledge certain conditions are to be satisfied: (i) each word in a sentence shall be meaningful and
raise some expectation (akanksha); (ii) all words shall be mutually compatible (yogyata)’ (iii) words
to be construed must have mutual proximity (sannidhi) and (iv) understanding about the context
(prakarana) and intention (tatparya) of the speaker shall be clear in the sentence. Mere possibility of
doubt and error of authority shall not be the reason for not giving a status of source of knowledge to it.
Only the words of reliable person (apta) can yield valid knowledge. What is said about essential
conditions of testimony is also guidance for writing the report.
UPAMANA
The fourth source of knowledge admitted by Gautama, Mimansists and Vedantists is upamana or
comparison. It is reasoning by analogy. When a person identifies a cow like animal without dewlap as
gavaya on the basis of his memory from an expert’s explanation, it is mere perception that is used. When
he thinks, ‘The cow at my home is like the gavaya, he obtains knowledge from similarity. Since
upamana based knowledge is developed on the basis of comparing an object which is absent with an
immediately present object, the reasoning should be careful. Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarian scholar and
positivist, regarded reasoning by analogy as prone to errors as objectivity could not be there.
ARTHAPATTI
The fifth source of knowledge is implication or arthapatti, recognized by the Mimamsa and Advaita
schools. It means the supposition of what is necessary for explaining any fact either observed (drishta)
or heard (sruta). For example, a person is fasting the whole day, but is growing stouter and stouter. For
explaining this, one is forced to suppose that he must be eating (unperceived) during the night. Such
supposition is a necessary, but not provisional, factor.
ANUPALABDHI
Sixthly, non-cognition or anupalabdhi is put forward by the Mimamsa and Advaita school as a source of
knowledge. Non-existence of a thing by itself is not a source of knowledge. But where it is qualified or

4
limited to particular locus, it is an admissible knowledge. For example, where a person looking round a
room tells there is not a single jug of water, he speaks of anupalabdhi, While non-existence cannot be
perceived through senses, previous knowledge about the thing in some other context enables him to
know the non-existence.

Some minor schools have recognized additional sources of knowledge in the form of tradition
(aitihya), presentiment (pratibha) and possible entailment (sambhava). Aitihya is derived from peoples
narrations of customs, practices, and background stories and also from historical evidences. Its
importance is greatly significant in social sciences. Presentiment as a source of knowledge has basis in
intuition. It is a kind of sixth sense. The guess about the future possibility (sambhava), rationally made
on the basis of objective estimation of facts, can also be a source of knowledge.

The Nyaya method of Reasoning

The art of philosophical disputation developed by nyaya school has given the systematic method of
reasoning. The sixteen factors employed or dealt in the course of reasoning are: pramana (means of right
knowledge), Prameya (object) samsaya, (doubt),
prayojana(purpose),dristanta((familiar instance),avayava (members of syllogism), nirnaya
(ascertainment, hypothesis) , tarka (indirect reasoning) jalpa (wrangling), vada (discussion), vitanda
(cavil) hetrabhasa (fallacy), chala (quibble), jati (futile objection), nigrahasthana (point of defeat),
siddhanta (tenet or conclusion). The factual survey done gives rise to doubt (statement of problem);
further inquiry tentatively brings prak nirnaya (ascertainment of hypothesis); reasoning on the basis of
collection of data through various arguments and defeat of untenable proposition ultimately leads to
siddhanta (conclusion).

Regarding any katha or controversy, the inquirer goes ahead with adoption of a paksha (thesis)
and a pratipaksha (counter thesis). The former attributes certain qualities and the latter or opponent
attributes contradictory qualities. Forthcoming proofs establishing one paksha and disproving the other
paksha lead to removal of doubts. Hetu (reason in support) tends to establish what is sought to be proved
(sadhya). The inquirer (jijnasu) subjects his initial proposition (prak nirnaya) to all the tests and
arguments including arguments based on fallacious reasoning, quibbles and futile objections before he
establishes (sthapana) or arrives at conclusion (nigamana). The five limbed Nyaya vakya given by
Gautama – pratijna, hetu, udaharana, upanaya, and nigamna – is assisted by elaborate discussion,

5
possibly by two different discussants taking opposing sides, in the course of which unacceptable
objections are removed like thorns (kantakodhara). The academic rigour and in-depth inquiry about all
possible view points in the above procedure contemplates speak about the extent of commitment to
truth.
Five types of reasoning employed in the matter of causation in the above process are as follows:
(i) atmashraya, where a particular factor is self-dependent and causes particular effect (e.g. X is the
cause of Y); (ii) anyonyashraya, where factors are mutually dependent; (iii) chakraka where the
argument is circular (e.g. A requires B, B requires C, C requires A); (iv) anavastha explaining one factor
with the help of another, the lather by one more factor ad infinitem; (v) tandanya badhita prasanga –
opposing the contradiction of conclusion. (e.g. Wambaugh’s test for identifying ratio decidendi of a
case)

Kumarila Bhatta’s canons

In the aphorism of Kumarila Bhatta (7th century AD) one can find research procedure for discovering,
creating and improving knowledge. He stated,
‘Vishayao Vishaasehaiva purvakaksha sthatotaram
Nirnayaischi panchanga shashtradhikarana smritam”.
This involves five - fold steps:
Step 1: Identification of a problem or statement of doubt in a context of confusing experience.
Step 2: Reviewing of existing literature, stating the purpose of research, justifying the need for
conducting the research. What one proposes to establish/examine shall be stated.
Step 3: Proposing the arguments or purvapaksha against the proposition stated earlier in step2.
Step 4: Responding to each of the points raised in the purvapaksha stated in step 3 by offering
answers (Uttarapaksha).
Step 5: Synthesizing diverse view points on the basis of sources of knowledge and arriving at
final solution/decision.
Kumarila has provided for a procedure basically drawn from the Nyaya method of reasoning and
the dialectical method involved in Vada Katha. But he improvises over katha type of paksha –
pratipaksha approach by first stating the arguments contradicting the proposition. This he calls
purvapaksha and responds to it by Uttarapaksha. More critical examination is forthcoming because of
the approach of contradicting the contradictory arguments. While Gautama’s five- fold Nyaya Vakya is

6
more suitable to problems in the field of science, Kumarila’s aphorism is developed for writing a
shastra, and is suitable to social science research too. In the field of legal research, by introducing
dialectical methods of reasoning and by drawing for discussion all types of arguments, it addresses the
total human and social experience and enables critical conclusion.

3. Reflective thinking and Meaning and significance of reflective thinking:

Thinking by posing questions to one self and trying to find answers to them through thought process can
be called reflective thinking. Normally such specific thought process is applied in relation to any
problem situation.

Regarding the routine works and ordinary chores of the day, it is the habit of mind or tradition
that is set into action. However, better quality of work can be produced or better effect and satisfaction
can be gained when those acts are done with application of mind. “Unthinking activity is governed too
completely by tradition or emotion” (FL Whitney). Blind attachment to the traditional view, absence of
attitude to question and complacence with the present state of knowledge block the emergence of new
awareness and compel the continuation of past practice.

The attitude to avoid the mental labour involved in questioning, in probing and discovering new
answer confines the thinking activity to those who dare and venture to take the trouble of the hard work.
It is the spread of scientific temper that expands the base of intellectual world. Scientific temper is an
attitude of mind which calls for a particular outlook and pattern of behaviour that recognizes acquisition
of knowledge and resolution of human problem through scientific method that aims at truth. For
example, Francis Bacon’s curious mind doubted everything until scientific explanation was given as an
evidence in support of it.

It is the curiosity, a dominant hue of the intellect that stimulates the human mind to think and
quench the thirst for knowledge and truth. Rudyard Kipling wrote –
“I keep six honest serving men
They taught me all I know;
Their names are what why and when
And how and where and who’.

Human person’s ability to reason, perceive and understand in the course and as a result of such
inquiry widens the horizons of knowledge. The wonders of nature, the complexities of human relations,

7
the multiple possibilities of technology and the philosophic and metaphysical discussions call for
inquiries. Knowledge system is not built in a single day. Each generation contributes towards its
advancement, some times more profusely and other times meagerly. Each succeeding generation stands
on the shoulders of the past and has the advantage of an elevated vista. Knowledge begets knowledge
owing to continuation of the inquisitive attitude. To pause and think in a reflective manner avoids the
folly of being caught in surprise or in the pain of unnecessary difficulty. But a thinking mind yields the
pleasure of innovation and the joy of discovery in addition to gain of recognition.

Dewey-Kelly process of Reflective Thinking

How reflective thinking can be carried on in a systematic manner, and what are the steps and
process involved in the act have been explained by John Dewey in the form of five steps. T.L. Kelly has
added another steps, i.e, step of futuristic appraisal.

The six steps of reflective thinking are as follows:

Step 1: The occurrence of a felt difficulty. Such difficulty might arise in any of the
following circumstances;
 Lack of adaptation of means to end.
 Difficulty in identifying the character of an object
 Difficulty in explaining an unexpected event.
Step 2: Definition of the difficulty in terms of a problem statement.
Step 3: Occurrence of a suggested explanation or possible solution – a guess, hypothesis,
inference or theory.
Step 4: The rational elaboration of an idea through the development of its implication, by means
of collection of data or evidence.
Step 5: Corroboration of the idea and formation of a concluding belief through experimental
verification of hypothesis.
Step 6: To appraise the new solution in the light of future needs.

The Features of the above six steps are that –

 Thinking activity is focusing on a specific problem.

8
  There is continuity in thinking at all stages.
 From step to step, there is refinement through reasoning.
 Both Inductive and deductive logic are applied in the course of analysis.
 Commitment to truth and objectivity is an attitude required.
 Inferences are based on facts and testing is also made in the light of facts.
 Both science and philosophy apply and interact.

The first step implies finding of an actual difficulty rather than an illusion. Specific experiences
about adjusting the limited mans to unlimited ends in the context of a stratified society – where the poor
and the rich, forward and the backward, powerful and the vulnerable, literate and on illiterate co exist –
provoke questions about equitable satisfaction of the social needs. The experiences about terrorism,
naxalism, gender bias, organized crimes, exploitations and irrational discriminations call for identifying
their nature, cause and cure. Natural and man-made calamities like climate change or accidents provoke
for the finding the method of dealing with them. When confusing and conflicting experiences and view
points are prevalent, the inquirer’s mind is challenged to solve the difficulty through his inquiry.

The inquiry gets proper shape when the researcher defines the problem by focusing on what he
considers as the important thrust of the difficulty. From this point onwards, the whole inquiry centers on
the issues emerging from the problem statement.

The third step involves a crucial measure of drawing inference and formulation of possible
answer to the research problem stated earlier. The guess or hypothesis so emerging should be an
outcome of careful inductive reasoning by the researcher. Inductive logic means drawing generalization
on the basis of variety of available information. But since at this stage the researcher’s acquaintance
with facts is not deep and widespread, the guess is of a tentative answer. A theme gets sprouted with the
statement of hypothesis.

Collection of relevant data or evidence from various sources of knowledge – literature,

perception, observation etc., - gives scope for further elaboration of the idea (Fourth stage). Data
collection should comprehend the whole experience, and should not be confined to those facts which
support the hypothesis leaving aside the contradicting facts.

9
 In stage 5, the hypothesis is tested or verified; the idea is corroborated. Through deductive
reasoning and the process of selection and integration, when the hypothesis is proud, a theory emerges
up to this stage, it is primarily the field of science in which the researcher traverses with intensive
scientific activity. When the inquirer moves to higher levels of generalizations with greater general
volume, he enters into the realm of philosophy. From scientific truth he moves to TRUTH. The largest
possible generalization i.e., ULTIMATE TRUTH is difficult to reach because of changing conditions of
human society and emergence of new discoveries.

Between science and philosophy, there is no real competition. After obtaining the most authentic
knowledge of nature by delving into the depths of scientific investigation, the inquirer resorts to critical
and constructive generalizations based on values and end goals. He enters into the domain of philosophy
by such action. Inadequacy of facts for evolving generalizations is felt at all levels. To overcome this
problem, a ‘leap of faith’ is normally attempted. According to Whitney, “ After every pause for analysis,
integration, and deductive verification, a leap more or less in the dark must be made, if any conclusion at
all, however tentative, is to be reached. This is the deductive leap, or the ‘heap of faith’ as it is
sometimes called”. He warns the beginner against resorting to ‘leap of faith’ at an early stage of the
work.

Another point to be remembered by the beginner is that, the sequence of steps in reflective
thinking is not rigid one. Further, the shuttle-like rhythm of induction and of deductive verification
proceed from lower levels to higher levels of generalization. The practical social value of steps in
reflective thinking is that it systematizes the thought process and builds good methodology for executing
the research work.

4. Scientific Method
Science as an organized body of knowledge developed a specific method to understand the principles
governing the natural phenomena, and articulate them in clear, cogent and precise terms. The five
distinct steps involved in scientific method are –
1. Definition of the problem
2. Collection and collation of data
3. formulation of a hypothesis
4. Verification and confirmation of hypothesis

10
 5. Enunciation of the theory.
These steps can be explained followingly.
The first step is clear and correct definition of the problem. In any selected field of
science, the inquirer has to proceed with numerous observations with an inquisitive mind,
looking for gap or deficiencies in explanation about the phenomena. When any phenomenon
(effect) is found and the course/s and the procedure of the phenomenon could not be perceived,
there arises the gap. In stead of subjective explanation, raising pertinent questions for
interpretation of nature should be done. Asking a right question becomes important. For example
the question, “What forces of nature cause the celestial bodies to move the way they do?” is a
more objective question than a probe into the cause for revolving of celestial objects around the
earth. The question is based on factual observation and initial experience that has witnessed a
phenomenon which could not be satisfactorily explained. The repeated cases of wilting disease in
jowar crop, and the increasing varieties of contagious diseases provoke questions for their causes
and the methods of their cure. The instances of falling objects (like ripened apples from the apple
tree) provoked Newton to question the reasons for the same. Statement of the problem should
aim at objective interpretation of nature rather than aiming at subjective explanation of the
incidents. A well framed question paves the way for meaningful analysis.

The second step is to collect the data and collate them systematically. Data should be
collected by means of numerous and accurate observation with the help of human services and
instruments of precision. As Milton Fairchild suggests, on the basis of similarities, variations,
activities, process, causes and results, the collected data shall be classified. There is the famous
example of Charles Darwin, who went on collecting data about natural selection process for
almost twenty years and systematically classified them. Although at the end of 4 or 5 years he
was guessing about the possible answer, with utmost patience he carried on the activity of
observation, and finally come out with a theory. He avoided influence or prejudice of early
hypothesis by elongated search, which was accordingly to him aimless search for pebbles in a
quarry. Raising inference from general experience involves inductive reasoning. Peculiarity of
the scientific method is that it is after elaborate collection of data that a generalization in the
form of hypothesis is formulated. In case of reflective thinking, although hypothesis is preceded
by preliminary study, the exhaustive collection of data is done subsequently. This does not mean

11
 that the follower of scientific method does not collect data after the framing of hypothesis. The
difference between the two approaches is one of degree only.

To give another example, the data collected and collated over the millennia pertaining to
movement of moon, earth and planets made man to evolve propositions that moon completes 12
lunations in a year; earth takes 365 days to complete revoluation around the sun; day and night occur
because of earth’s rotation in its axis and the cycle of seasons repeats after a year. This initial
proposition, called a hypothesis, gets converted into verified theory after repeated observation and
calculation.

The third step involves formulation of hypothesis, which etymologically means half thesis. It is
an intelligent guess based on well-ordered data. Intuition, which means instantaneous apprehension of
the problem in its entirety, gives clue about the possible answer to the question at hand. Albert Einstein
said, “All great achievements of science start from intuitive knowledge, normally in axioms, from which
deductions are then made. Intuition is the necessary condition for the discovery of such axioms”.
Constructive imagination and discernment shows the way out of the mass of classified data just as the
sculptor shapes up a statue out of the material at his disposal.

The fourth step is to test or unify the hypothesis with experimentation and observation. By
repeated experiments in various conditions and in the light of additionally gathered data, the hypothesis
shall be tested. A “may be” answer fructifies into “is’ theory by intelligent analysis and conclusion.
Deductive method of reasoning is employed in this process. But the truth so found is not ultimate truth
as human knowledge cannot comprehend fully the vast universe which has great diversities. As G.T.
Narayana Rao writes, “No one is sure whether the ultima thule is there but every one is sure that man
can never attain it. The only course open to him is eternal progress, not always on the right tracks. He
can reject the wrong ones and choose others and proceed in the Edisonian manner. The name of this
activity is science”. It is by such progressive outlook that theories which summed valid at one point of
time were discarded at the other like garment out of fashion. For example, after several centuries of
unabated rein, the geo-centric theory was declared as false and helio-centric theory got established.

The fifth and final stage is to declare the theory by accepting, modifying or rejecting the
hypothesis. From the definition of the problem to this stage, reasoning and generalization proceed as

12
continuous process. The social responsibility of enlightening the world through scientific method gets
fulfilled with announcement of the finding by publication.

Prominent characteristics of Scientific Method

Scientific method is an effective tool in invention of new knowledge. Its prominent features are;
 Its findings are objective or they set public standards which anybody can perceive and arrive at
the same conclusion.
 Logical continuity of reasoning from definition to conclusion can be found with systematic
theoretic orientation.
 It enables precise measurement of quantification of propositions.
 It is experimentally verifiable.
 Its findings are universally applicable
 It postpones formulation of hypothesis in order to have clear insight from the collection and
collation of data. This may put the inquirer into a rudderless position for a long time without
getting a grip.

Inductive and deductive methods of reasoning

Evolving a generalization on the basis of vast array of facts involves inductive logic. It is a movement
from general to particular. According to Francis Bacan, one should concentrate on facts observed by him
and abstract step by step the principles governing them. The inquirer must set aside the pre-conceived
notions or prejudices and avoid the temptation of jumping to form hypothesis at the lightest provocation.
After being convinced about its viability he shall formulate hypothesis by using inductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning is used to apply a particular proposition to a variety of general facts and
verify its tenability. It is a movement from particular to general. At the fourth stage of scientific method
discussed above, deductive method is applied.

Both the methods are useful and inevitable in all inquiries, whether in reflective thinking or in
scientific method. Alternative application of both at various stages enables systematic progress and
avoidance of errors.

13
 5. Comparison of ancient Indian model, the reflective thinking strategy and the scientific
method
There are similarities and dissimilarities amidst these three procedures of intellectual exercise.
Similarities:
 They focus on a specific problem by defining it.
 They evolve a possible answer or hypothesis and concentrate on a specific theme. Unity of theme
is aimed by all.
 They use inductive logic in generalizing about values, and test the proposition with deductive
reasoning.
 They do not hesitate to reject hypothesis, when the latter is proved as wrong.
 All the pros and cans are taken into consideration in finalizing the conclusion.
 Link and interaction between science and philosophy are prevalent in all.
Dissimilarities
 Ancient Indian model accommodates or uses all the sources of knowledge whereas the other two
confine them to facts and inferences.
 Ancient Indian model combines truth with moral perfection whereas the others do not insist on
that.
 Scientific method postpones formulation of hypothesis to a mature stage until which inquirer has
to delve into facts.
 Futuristic projection is aimed in Kelly’s addition to reflective thinking methods.
 Scientific method is abstract whereas other techniques are more creative.

14