or from one of the two parts to the other. The first is syllogism, the second induction, and the third analogy.”
The reply is:
You have offered no proof that inference is confined to these three forms. If, by inference from one particular to another, you mean analogical reasoning, then your classification is not exhaustive. It leaves out inference from one universal to another necessarily connected with it and matching it in generality and particularity. Likewise, it leaves out inference from one particular to another necessarily connected with it, such that the existence of either entails the existence of the other, and its absence entails the other’s absence. This is none of what you have called syllogism, induction, or analogy. These are signs.
An example is inferring daytime from sunrise, or sunrise from daytime. This is not inference from a universal to a particular. Rather, inferring a particular daytime from a particular sunrise is inference from one particular to another, while inferring sunrise in general from daytime in general is inference from one universal to another.
Likewise, using the stars to determine the direction of the Kaaba is inference from one particular to another—for example, using al-Jady, Banāt Na‘sh, and the small star near the pole which some people call “the Pole.” The same applies to inferring the appearance of a star from the appearance of its counterpart in latitude, or inferring from one star’s rising that another is setting or that another is culminating, and other such indications upon which people agree.
The Most High says:
“And by the stars they are guided.”