A process of Induction goes something like this:
(1) Begin with an empirical fact(s).
(2) An unprejudiced description (Phenomenology) of this/these empirical fact(s). Note the word ‘unprejudiced description’. This is the step of Psychoanalysis. The trouble starts right at the beginning and it only gets worse, resulting in layers and layers of justifications, but no growth of knowledge.
(3) An attempt at Abstraction:
(4) Ordered representation from a theoretical perspective, so as to offer an explanation of the phenomena taken into consideration.
The path of induction is laden with numerous intrinsic dangers. I already mentioned,
(1) justification and
(2) lack of growth of knowledge.
Another intrinsic danger of this method particularly threatens psychoanalysis.. This is so because the phenomenology (step 2) always receives support/feedback from the theory governing the research (4th step)…so that facts are selected in order to fill certain gaps in the theory.
I will illustrate the above points, in future parts, with the help of following examples:
(1) Professor Achar’s claim for 3067 BCE as the year of Mahabharata War
(2) Shri Shrikant Talageri’s claim for AV observation by Vyasa as a psychic (and not-astronomy) observation.