چکیده:
Ibn Sina's views on induction are considered among the most accurate, not only among Muslim philosophers but also among early philosophers in general. This renowned Iranian philosopher critiqued Aristotle's theory of induction while still working within the Aristotelian framework. Through his scholarly critique, he exposed its limitations. He then introduced the concept of experience in a precise manner and combined induction with a hidden analogy to address the problem of achieving certainty through induction. However, he recognized that this certainty could not be absolute. Therefore, Ibn Sina sought to determine the conditions for obtaining certainty. He showed that certainty derived from experience is conditional, achievable only under specific circumstances. The first premise of his hidden analogy is the ‘Random Rule’ (qaʿidat al-ittifaqi), which has been subject to much criticism. One of the most significant criticisms concerns the empirical nature of the Random Rule. This article will first explain Ibn Sina's perspective. It will then examine Khwajah Nasir's views on experience and induction. By drawing on Khwajah Nasir's ideas, the article will present a rational analysis of the Random Rule, demonstrating that it can be explained rationally using the principle of causality and is not merely an empirical rule.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Thus, it is as if in induction, the major premise judges through the minor, due to the existence of the major Analysis and Investigation of Induction and Experience according to Ibn Sina/ Zahra Esmaeili and Seyyed Mohammad Hakak 139 on the minor; and its example is as follows: Verily, every long-lived animal is low in bile (domestic), because every long-lived animal is either human, or horse, or cow, and humans, horses, and cows are low in bile.
This matter is clear in Ibn Sina's logic and is not the place to address it here; however, in the second case, meaning induction, a universal judgment is obtained from the repeated observation of a specific relationship between particulars.
Analysis and Investigation of Induction and Experience in Ibn Sina/ Zahra Esmaili and Seyed Mohammad Hakkak 143 The discussion regarding the accidental cause, and whether an accidental cause can be considered a cause at all or not, is extensive; however, so far we have understood that from Aristotle's perspective, a permanent or majority matter is something that an essential cause has brought about; whereas an accidental matter is an effect of an accidental cause.
Analysis and Investigation of Induction and Experience according to Ibn Sina / Zahra Esmaeili and Sayyid Mohammad Hakkak 147 Ibn Sina again turns to the primary cause of issuing a judgment, namely the requirement of nature, and reminds the experimenter that what they should pay attention to is the "nature of the observed matter" and not the accidental properties accompanying it.
(
, 
, 
)
