Experience and Inductive Reasoning

The Primacy of Sensory Experience

The initial forms of knowledge and awareness arise from sensory perception (*idrāk-i hissī*) and experiential engagement with objects. Experience (*tajriba*) and induction (*istiqrā’*) constitute the fundamental units of awareness and understanding (*dānā’ī*) for the embodied, natural human. Sensory perception involves the examination and reception of information through observation, experience, repeatability, measurement, and analytical reasoning, or, in logical terms, through the inductive method (*ravesh-i istiqrā’ī*).

The Universality of Perception

Perception and awareness, at the levels of sensory perception and the comprehension of concepts and rational entities (*ma‘qūlāt*), follow a universal and accessible pathway. The methodology and systematic nature of this process are subject to experience, description, and analysis. However, each individual’s process of acquiring knowledge and awareness varies, depending on the laboratory resources available to them, resulting in unique experiences and descriptions shaped by differing degrees of rational precision.

Reconstructing Logical Foundations

With the dismantling of the essentialist framework (*dastgāh-i māhiyyat*) from logical foundations, the system of understanding, awareness, and knowledge undergoes a transformation. The starting point of logical perception shifts from Aristotelian categories (*maqūlāt-i Arastū*) and the theory of natural universals (*kullī-yi tabī‘ī*) to biology and other empirical sciences, employing the inductive method, particularly in defining and understanding subjects. Due to its critical function, induction serves as the gateway to deductive reasoning (*istinbāṭī*).

The material mind and human perceptual system engage directly and dynamically with external reality (*wāqi‘-i khārijī*) through experience and induction, establishing a connection rooted in empathy (*ans*) and harmony (*hamdilī*).

Empirical Study of Awareness

Awareness, as an objective reality (*wāqi‘iyyat-i ‘aynī*), is studied through induction, laboratory methods, and the availability of experimental facilities. Humans learn from experience and induction, applying this knowledge to new objects, situations, decision-making, and human functions.

Awareness deepens through the interplay of intuition (*shuhūd*), active imagination (*takhayyul-i fa‘‘āl*), and coherent integration of prior theories, solutions, models, and realities. This process, engaging both surface and depth, constructs mental judgments (*qażāwat-i zihnī*), conceptual evaluations (*dāwarī-yi mafhūmī*), and rational rulings (*ḥukm*).

The Synergy of Methods

The coexistence (*hamnishīnī*) and mutual engagement (*hamzīstī*) of inductive and deductive methods, alongside the discovery of universal principles through inductive generalizations—including informed conjectures (*ḥads-hā-yi sā’ib*) based on the analysis of singular experiences—and the axiomatic method (*ravesh-i usūl-i mawżū‘ī*) rooted in creative imagination, foster the development of all forms of awareness and knowledge.

In the axiomatic method, principles governing the relationships between propositions and interdependent affirmations (*taṣdīqāt*) are established. The coherence and compatibility of these principles with external reality are evaluated, and efforts are made to empirically validate the resulting data.

The Influence of Sensory Perception

Sensory perceptions, or natural actions (*kunsh-hā-yi tabī‘ī*), can generate preconceptions (*pīsh-farz*) for thought, influencing the mind through sensory experience. Some perceptions stem from instinctual (*gharīzī*), physiological (*fīziyūlūzhīk*), and organ-based functions, as well as habits (*‘ādat*) and acquired dispositions (*malkāt*). Superficial habits and familiarity can lead to deceptive awareness (*farīb dar āgāhī*) and sophistry (*safsaṭa*), which do not constitute genuine awareness.

The Scope of Inductive Reasoning

The subject of inductive reasoning (*istidlāl-i istiqrā’ī*) encompasses practical, external, and apparent realities (*umūr-i wāqi‘ī-yi żāhirī*), as well as the empirical definition and description of phenomena. It also serves as the foundation for deductive reasoning by uncovering relationships of coexistence (*hamnishīnī*), mutual engagement (*hamzīstī*), proportional dependency (*vābastigī-yi tanāsubī*), and similarity (*shabāhat*), with the highest probability. Knowledge and awareness are formed through connections and empathy (*irtibāṭāt wa hamdilī*). Stronger connections contribute to awareness, while weaker ones recede into the latent realm (*bāṭin*), becoming inaccessible and concealed.

Reality vs. Truth

Inductive knowledge (*‘ilm-i istiqrā’ī*) does not access truth (*ḥaqīqat*) but engages with reality (*wāqi‘iyyat*). Human experience and perception correspond to reality, not truth, as there is a distinction between the two. Realities are accessible to experience, awareness, and the material mind, which perceives the appearance (*nimā*) and attributes (*ṣifāt*) of each reality through presential awareness (*āgāhī-yi ḥużūrī*) within itself. A sound mind mirrors the original external reality (*‘ayn-i khārijī*), with conformity to reality serving as its own criterion, embodying the essence of reality (*nafs al-amr*). However, in impure or distorted forms of knowledge, conformity to reality remains a condition of validity (*shart-i ‘ilm*).

Induction in Islamic Jurisprudence

In Islamic jurisprudence (*sharī‘at*), practical rulings and their effects rely on the apparent aspect (*nimā-yi żāhirī*) of realities, which yield only a form of conjecture (*żann-i naw‘ī*). In juristic reasoning (*ijtihād*), the principle of validating apparent manifestations (*uṣūl-i i‘tibār-i mawjah-i żuhūr*) is recognized with provisional validity (*ḥujjiyyat*), equated to enforceable obligation (*tanjīz*) and exculpation (*ta‘dhīr*). Legal indicators (*amārāt-i shar‘ī*), which provide an incomplete discovery of an imperfect reality rather than a necessary and complete representation, and practical principles (*uṣūl-i ‘amalī*)—which do not reflect reality but serve to resolve practical uncertainty—are formalized. These are adopted devotionally (*ta‘abbudī*) as substitutes for definitive evidence (*dalā’il-i qaṭ‘ī*). Jurisprudence neither relies on truth nor reality itself, nor mandates their discovery or action upon them. It not only permits and endorses conjecture derived from appearances but deems actions based on reliable and acceptable appearances (*żāhir-i ma’mūn wa maqbūl*), validated through legal indicators and principles, sufficient, enforceable (*munajjaz*), stable (*thābit*), exculpatory (*mu‘adhdhir*), and immune from blame (*māni‘ az ‘uqūb*), even if contrary to reality, until definitive evidence or refutation is presented, regardless of access to knowledge.

Human Fallibility

As a human with a human nature, one lacks infallibility (*ma‘ṣūmiyyat*) or immunity from error in mental creativity. Humans are subject to partial and relative error (*khaṭā’-i juz’ī wa nisbi*) in both theoretical reason (*‘aql-i naẓarī*) and practical reason (*‘aql-i ‘amalī*). The human brain can fabricate (*ja‘l*), distort (*dass*), or falsify realities, creating false memories (*hāfiẓa-yi kāzib*). Even unmediated intuitive knowledge (*ma‘rifat-i bī-vāsiṭa-yi shuhūdī*) is susceptible to error in practice, though not necessarily in rational or essential terms. Immunity from error (*khaṭā-nāpazīrī*) is relative, contingent on deductive demonstration (*burhān-i ‘aql*), adherence to scientific logic, methodological rigor (*rawishmandī*), purity (*ṣafā*), faith (*īmān*), and specific divine gifts (*mawhibat-i khās-i khudādādī*) bestowed upon certain individuals.

The Validity of Induction

Induction involves empirical and experimental investigation (*taḥqīq-i tajribī wa āzmunī*) of particular instances to derive general rulings (*ḥukm-i ‘āmm wa kullī*). The validity (*ḥujjiyyat*) of experience stems from the assurance (*iṭminān*) gained through repeatable observations and the non-random nature of their recurrence. When inductive investigation is accompanied by analysis (*taḥlīl*), description (*tawṣīf*), explanation (*ta‘līl*), inference (*istinbāṭ*), scientific experimentation, and meaningful connections (*rabṭ-i mutanāsib wa ma‘nā-dār*), it engenders assurance, generalization (*ta‘mīm*), specification (*takhsīṣ*), and the application of rulings. Such induction aligns with deductive reasoning (*tafkīr-i qiyāsī*) in the realm of recognizing realities and serves as evidence (*dalīl*) and proof (*ḥujjat*) relative to the position of reality, distinct from truth.

Conjecture and Assurance

Conjecture (*żann*) and assurance (*iṭminān*) in empirical science arise from meaningful and valid connections (*piwand-i ma‘nā-dār wa mu‘tabar*). Empirical experience, tasked with recognizing the attributes and appearances of realities, requires no more than this to be considered evidence and valid. Conjecture implies favoring the likelihood of occurrence (*wuqū‘*), while acknowledging the possibility of the opposite (*khilāf*). It cannot achieve complete, error-free discovery of reality, as reality itself entails such limitations. Nevertheless, established experiences (*mujarrabāt*) possess evidential validity (*dalīl-i ḥujjiyyat*). Collective, rather than individual, observation of repeated instances yields not a sum of zeros but a valid and irrefutable conjecture (*żann-i mu‘tabar wa takhalluf-nāpazīr*), which, due to its meaningfulness, is recognized by rational agents (*‘uqalā’*) and constitutes genuine knowledge.

The Evidential Nature of Experience

Established experiences are relied upon because they involve an implicit deductive reasoning (*qiyās-i khafī*): if a sensory event consistently or predominantly leads to a specific outcome, their relationship is necessary (*istilzāmī*) rather than purely or relatively coincidental (*ittifāq*). For understanding realities, nothing more is required, provided one avoids the common trap of deceptive constructions (*inshā’-i farīb-kārāna*) that present fragments of reality as the whole, or the fallacy of reductionism (*mughālaṭa-yi taḥwīlī-nigarī*). Under this premise, certainty (*yaqīn*) should not be expected, nor should superficial awareness be mistaken for profound knowledge (*zhurfā-yi āgāhī*). The appropriate starting point for awareness and knowledge is the perception of sensibles (*maḥsūsāt*) and experiences through inductive and laboratory methods. Conceptual and mental awareness must be translated into operational and observable perceptions in the laboratory to yield results.

Deductive Reasoning and Beyond

Deductive reasoning (*ravesh-i istinbāṭī* or *istidlāl-i qiyāsī*), which uncovers the principles of awareness through logical inference, should not be confined to vague or dimly lit conceptual knowledge (*āgāhī-yi mubham wa ittifāq-i kam-furūgh-i mafhūmī*). Its validity lies in its instrumental role (*ālī wa ṭarīqī*) in accessing the realm of presence (*sāḥat-i ḥużūr*) and resorting to experience or intuition (*shuhūd*). Thus, any conceptual definition describing concepts through other concepts must culminate in an operational definition (*ta‘rīf-i ‘amaliyātī*), employing the most suitable method to clarify how the concept can be experienced or measured. One who cannot operationally recognize matter, the material world, or nature through measurement, experimentation, or empathetic engagement (*dil-dādagī-yi ansī wa jazb*)—the essence of connection (*rabṭ*), attainment (*wuṣūl*), and manifestation rooted in love (*‘ishq*)—cannot truly know their reality. Such a person risks falling into mentalism (*zehn-garā’ī*), speaking of abstract meanings (*ma‘nā wa ma‘qūl*) that lack existence and neglecting the sensible world by abandoning experience, thereby substituting ignorance (*nā-āgāhī*), deception (*farīb*), and sophistry (*safsaṭa*) for genuine awareness.

The Provisional Nature of Inductive Conclusions

The outcome of inductive reasoning, which uncovers realities, is never definitive (*qaṭ‘ī*). This is a characteristic of realities, and no more is expected. However, the more rigorously a reality is investigated through scientific methods, advanced industrial tools, collective deliberation (*ham-andīshī-yi jam‘ī*), and shared knowledge, the stronger and more qualitative the induction becomes. Due to its qualitative nature, engagement with superficial layers, susceptibility to superficial thinking (*sathī-andīshī*), and the infinite variability of quality, multiple probable values govern it, and its data remain subject to revision (*tajdid-i naẓar*).

Rejecting such connections leads to a pervasive condition of uncertainty, instability, and volatility (*nāpāydārī*). Conversely, the slight possibility of error in the mutable, unstable realm of realities (*wāqi‘iyyat-hā-yi shināwar*) sharpens and enhances the mind’s creativity, fostering new forms of awareness.

The Ontological Necessity of Reality

The reason for accepting reality is that denying its existence—asserting that there is no reality—entails the necessary affirmation of an undeniable objective reality (*nafs-i inkār*), which admits no negation, refutation, or falsification. Thus, the denial of reality is self-defeating (*khud-barandāz*), undermining its own content and meaning.

Reality and Truth

Realities, when just (*‘ādilāna*), align with truth (*ḥaqīqat*) or are truthful (*sādiq*). When unjust, they are mere realities, possessing only determination (*ta‘yīn*), character (*shakhsiyyat*), and the capacity for connection (*rabṭ*), dependency (*vābastigī*), similarity (*shabāhat*), and attainment (*wuṣūl*). Truth, however, is singular, both capable of instantiation through love (*‘ishq*) and unity (*waḥdat*), and situated within the orbit of knowledge (*ma‘rifat*), the immaterial heart (*qalb-i mujarrad*), spiritual cognition (*shinākht-i rūḥ-i ma‘nawī*), and inner intuition (*shuhūd-i bāṭinī*).

Inductive Reasoning and Experiential Knowledge in Islamic Epistemology

Introduction

Islamic epistemology, the study of how knowledge is acquired and validated, blends sensory experience, rational thought, and spiritual insight to understand reality. This article explores a Persian philosophical text that examines the role of sensory experience (*tajriba*) and inductive reasoning (*istiqrā’*, the process of drawing general conclusions from specific observations) in shaping human awareness. Unlike Western traditions that often prioritize deductive logic (reasoning from general principles to specific cases), this text emphasizes empirical observation as the foundation of knowledge, challenging Aristotelian frameworks that rely on fixed essences or categories (Aristotle, 1995). It also distinguishes between *wāqi‘iyyat* (reality, the observable world) and *ḥaqīqat* (truth, a deeper, often spiritual essence), a key concept in Islamic philosophy (Nasr, 2006). Additionally, the text connects these ideas to Islamic jurisprudence (*sharī‘at*), where practical decisions are based on probable knowledge (*żann*) rather than absolute certainty. To make these concepts accessible, this article provides detailed explanations and draws parallels with Western thinkers like John Locke and David Hume, as well as Islamic scholars like Mulla Sadra and Al-Ghazali, offering a bridge for non-specialist readers (Hume, 1748/2007; Al-Attas, 1990).

Sensory Experience: The Starting Point of Knowledge

Knowledge begins with sensory experience, where humans observe and interact with the physical world. The text describes sensory perception (*idrāk-i hissī*) as a process of collecting data through observation, repeated experiments, measurements, and logical analysis, a method known as induction (*istiqrā’*). Induction involves noticing patterns in specific cases (e.g., the sun rises every morning) to form general rules (e.g., the sun rises daily). This aligns with Western empiricism, where knowledge is grounded in sensory data (Locke, 1690/1975). In Islamic philosophy, sensory experience is a primary source of knowledge but is refined by reason and intuition, as seen in Mulla Sadra’s concept of presential knowledge (*‘ilm-i ḥużūrī*), where the mind directly engages with reality (Mulla Sadra, 2002). For non-specialists, this can be understood as learning through direct observation, like a scientist conducting experiments to understand natural phenomena.

Perception: Universal Yet Individual

Everyone can perceive the world through their senses and form concepts, but the text notes that this process varies. Each person’s access to tools, like laboratory equipment, and their rational skills shape how they interpret observations. For example, a biologist with advanced microscopes may gain deeper insights than someone relying on the naked eye. This idea echoes Avicenna’s view that cognitive abilities differ, affecting how individuals process universal truths (Avicenna, 1952). The process is systematic, allowing scientists to describe and analyze it, much like modern cognitive science studies how the brain processes information (Johnson-Laird, 1983). For non-specialists, this means that while we all learn from experience, our tools and abilities make our understanding unique.

Moving Beyond Aristotelian Logic

The text rejects Aristotelian logic, which relies on fixed categories (e.g., substance, quality) to define reality, in favor of empirical sciences like biology. Aristotelian epistemology assumes objects have inherent essences (*māhiyyat*) that the mind grasps, but the text argues that knowledge starts with observation, not abstract categories (Aristotle, 1995). Induction, by examining specific cases, paves the way for deductive reasoning, where general principles are applied to new situations. This shift mirrors modern science’s reliance on data over metaphysical assumptions, as advocated by Karl Popper (Popper, 1959). The mind connects with reality through *ans* (empathy, an intuitive bond with the world), a concept rooted in Islamic relational philosophy, emphasizing harmony (*hamdilī*) over detached analysis (Mulla Sadra, 2002). For non-specialists, this is like learning about nature by observing it directly, rather than assuming predefined rules.

Studying Awareness Empirically

Awareness itself is a real phenomenon (*wāqi‘iyyat-i ‘aynī*) that can be studied through experiments. The text suggests that humans use sensory experiences to learn and apply knowledge to new contexts, such as making decisions or solving problems. Awareness grows deeper when intuition (*shuhūd*, direct insight) and imagination (*takhayyul-i fa‘‘āl*) combine with existing theories, forming judgments and concepts. This process is similar to how cognitive scientists describe mental models, where the brain builds representations of the world (Johnson-Laird, 1983). For example, a child learns that fire is hot by touching it, then uses this knowledge to avoid burns, refining their understanding through experience.

Combining Inductive and Deductive Approaches

The text promotes a blend of inductive (*istiqrā’ī*, observing specifics to form general rules) and deductive (*qiyāsī*, applying general rules to specifics) methods, alongside axiomatic reasoning, where creative imagination establishes foundational principles. These principles are tested against reality, much like scientific hypotheses (Popper, 1959). Informed guesses (*ḥads-hā-yi sā’ib*) based on single observations can lead to universal insights, a process akin to scientific discovery. For non-specialists, this is like a detective piecing together clues (induction) and then using logic (deduction) to solve a case, with creativity sparking new ideas.

The Power and Pitfalls of Sensory Perception

Sensory experiences shape how we think, but they can also mislead. The text warns that habits (*‘ādat*) or instincts (*gharīzī*) may create false assumptions, leading to errors or sophistry (*safsaṭa*, flawed reasoning). This echoes Locke’s caution that unexamined sensory data can distort understanding (Locke, 1690/1975). For example, assuming all swans are white based on limited observations can lead to mistakes when a black swan is encountered. Critical reflection is essential to ensure accurate knowledge.

What Induction Can Achieve

Inductive reasoning focuses on observable realities (*umūr-i wāqi‘ī-yi żāhirī*), defining phenomena through experiments and forming probable conclusions. It relies on relationships like coexistence (*hamnishīnī*) or similarity (*shabāhat*), strengthened by *ans* (empathy), which fosters deeper connections with reality. Weak connections fade into the background (*bāṭin*), becoming less accessible. The text clarifies that induction grasps *wāqi‘iyyat* (reality, the observable world) but not *ḥaqīqat* (truth, a deeper essence), a distinction rooted in Islamic philosophy (Al-Ghazali, 2000). A healthy mind reflects reality directly through presential awareness (*āgāhī-yi ḥużūrī*, unmediated knowledge), acting as its own standard, though flawed perceptions require external validation.

Induction in Islamic Legal Reasoning

In Islamic law (*sharī‘at*), decisions often rely on *żann* (conjecture, probable knowledge based on appearances) rather than certainty. The text explains that jurists (*mujtahids*) use apparent realities (*nimā-yi żāhirī*) to issue rulings, validated by *ḥujjiyyat* (legal validity), which ensures practical outcomes like *tanjīz* (enforceable obligation) and *ta‘dhīr* (exculpation from blame). Legal indicators (*amārāt-i shar‘ī*) offer partial insights into reality, while practical principles (*uṣūl-i ‘amalī*) resolve uncertainty, adopted as devotional substitutes for definitive proof (*dalā’il-i qaṭ‘ī*). This pragmatic approach, formalized in Usuli jurisprudence, prioritizes actionable decisions over absolute truth, a concept comparable to legal pragmatism in Western law (Shatibi, 2004; Posner, 2003). For example, a judge may rule based on available evidence, even if it’s not conclusive, to ensure justice is served.

Human Error and Knowledge

Humans are not infallible (*ma‘ṣūmiyyat*). The text notes that errors can occur in both theoretical reasoning (*‘aql-i naẓarī*, understanding the world) and practical reasoning (*‘aql-i ‘amalī*, making decisions). The brain may create false memories (*hāfiẓa-yi kāzib*), and even intuitive knowledge (*ma‘rifat-i shuhūdī*) can be flawed. Error-free knowledge requires logical rigor (*burhān-i ‘aql*), scientific methods, purity (*ṣafā*), faith (*īmān*), or divine gifts, as seen in Islamic teachings about prophetic guidance (Al-Attas, 1990). For non-specialists, this means our perceptions can trick us, like mistaking a shadow for a threat, but careful thinking and ethical grounding reduce mistakes.

Why Induction Works

Induction derives general rules from specific observations, validated by repeated, non-random results (*iṭminān*). When combined with analysis, explanation, and meaningful connections (*rabṭ-i ma‘nā-dār*), it produces reliable knowledge about reality, akin to scientific experiments (Hume, 1748/2007). *Żann* (conjecture) is sufficient for empirical science, as reality itself is probabilistic, not absolute. Collective observations strengthen validity (*ḥujjiyyat*), producing trustworthy conclusions, like confirming a drug’s effectiveness through clinical trials.

The Strength of Experience

Experiences (*mujarrabāt*) are reliable because they imply necessary connections (*istilzāmī*), not mere chance (*ittifāq*). The text warns against reductionist errors (*mughālaṭa-yi taḥwīlī-nigarī*), where parts are mistaken for the whole, and emphasizes starting with observable data, not assumptions. This aligns with Popper’s scientific method, where hypotheses are tested empirically (Popper, 1959). For example, observing rain repeatedly after dark clouds suggests a causal link, but assuming all clouds cause rain is a mistake to avoid.

Deduction and Practical Definitions

Deductive reasoning (*istidlāl-i qiyāsī*) applies general principles logically but must lead to *ḥużūr* (presential awareness, direct engagement with reality). Conceptual definitions should become operational (*ta‘rīf-i ‘amaliyātī*), enabling measurement or testing. Without empathetic engagement (*ans*, intuitive connection) with the world, rooted in *‘ishq* (love), one risks mentalism (*zehn-garā’ī*, detached theorizing), losing touch with reality (Mulla Sadra, 2002). For non-specialists, this means ideas must be testable, like measuring temperature to understand heat, rather than just theorizing about it.

Induction’s Provisional Nature

Inductive knowledge is never final, reflecting the changing nature of reality (*wāqi‘iyyat-hā-yi shināwar*). Advanced tools and collective research (*ham-andīshī-yi jam‘ī*) improve its quality, but it remains open to revision (*tajdid-i naẓar*). The possibility of error sparks creativity, aligning with the Qur’anic view of constant renewal (Qur’an, Ar-Rahman: 29). For example, early beliefs about the Earth’s shape were revised with new evidence, showing science’s adaptability.

Reality Exists, Undeniably

Denying reality (*nafs-i inkār*) is self-contradictory, as the act of denial affirms an objective reality. This argument, rooted in Islamic metaphysics, underscores existence (*wujūd*) as undeniable (Mulla Sadra, 2002). For non-specialists, this is like saying you can’t deny the world exists while living in it—your actions prove it’s real.

Reality and Truth: A Key Distinction

Realities, when just (*‘ādilāna*), align with *ḥaqīqat* (truth, a singular, spiritual essence). Unjust realities are mere phenomena, capable of connection (*rabṭ*) but lacking truth’s depth. Truth is accessed through the heart (*qalb-i mujarrad*) and inner intuition (*shuhūd-i bāṭinī*), a mystical concept in Islamic philosophy (Al-Ghazali, 2000). For non-specialists, reality is what we see (e.g., a tree), while truth is a deeper meaning (e.g., the tree’s role in creation), understood through reflection or spirituality.

Conclusion

This Persian text offers a rich perspective on knowledge, blending empirical observation, rational analysis, and spiritual insight. By prioritizing induction and experience, it challenges rigid frameworks and highlights human fallibility, while its legal insights show how probable knowledge guides practical decisions. For a global audience, it bridges Islamic and Western thought, showing how observation fuels learning, much like science or everyday problem-solving. Further research could explore how these ideas apply to modern epistemology or intercultural dialogues, fostering a deeper understanding of knowledge across traditions.

References

Al-Attas, S. M. N. (1990). The nature of man and the psychology of the human soul. Kuala Lumpur: International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization.
Al-Ghazali, A. H. (2000). The incoherence of the philosophers (M. E. Marmura, Trans.). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.
Aristotle. (1995). Categories. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Avicenna. (1952). Kitāb al-Shifā’ (G. C. Anawati & S. Zayed, Eds.). Cairo: General Egyptian Book Organization.
Hume, D. (2007). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1748)
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Locke, J. (1975). An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1690)
Mulla Sadra. (2002). The philosophy of Mulla Sadra (S. H. Nasr, Ed.). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Nasr, S. H. (2006). Islamic philosophy from its origin to the present. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Posner, R. A. (2003). Law, pragmatism, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Qur’an. (n.d.). Surah Ar-Rahman (55:29). Retrieved from https://quran.com/55/29
Shatibi, I. (2004). Al-Muwāfaqāt fī uṣūl al-sharī‘a. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya.