According to Vedantic pramana system Anumana is Inferential knowledge and Shabda is Scriptural/Testimonial knowledge.
So when these two contradict each other which one should we consider as true?
If you can site sources it will be very helpful
Hinduism Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for followers of the Hindu religion and those interested in learning more about Hinduism. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
From a Dvaita perspective:
Pratyaksha as verified by "sakshi", the indwelling self, is not an erroneous experience. This is not to negate the erroneous experiences at all. As far as Anumana is concerned, as its name implies, it is anu-mana, secondary to and based on pratyaksha.
As far as the Paramatma or Brahman is concerned, only source of knowledge is Sabda. Neither pratyaksha, nor anumana can help here. (Pratyaksha negatees and Anumaana can go both ways.)
And,this Sabda should be a non-dushta source and it should be so always- not only here in this so called phenomenal world but even in Mukthi, because if it can be negated, or if it is also in the realm of mithya, what it says may carry no value, and as a source, it is useless.
The dvaita system of Shri Madhvacharya accepts the Vedas as Nitya precisely for this reason.
An additional concept accepted by others too is the Veda-apaureshayatva. If the Vedas are the source of Brahmajnana and if the Source of the vedas is the Brahman, it becomes anyonyaashraya.
Another axiomatic concept is the svatahpraamaanya of the Vedas.
Now coming to your question:
When inference contradicts Sabda-
a. Suppose Sabda tells 'fire is cold', Sabda cannot be valid. So, is Sabda wrong? Sabda needs to be reinterpreted according to rules of grammar and rules of interpretation without contradicting pratyaksha or anumaana -a process called samanvaya. Thus, for a dvaitin, the whole vedas are pramana, even the so called karma kaanda portions (which classification it does not accept as there is no internal evidence for the same)
b. when the Sabda-contradicting inference is wrt Brahman, Shruti and those sadaagamas aligned with it alone are valid proof.
सदागमैकविज्ञेयं समतीतक्षराक्षरं नारायणं सदा वन्दे निर्दोषाशेषसद्गुणम् ||(Shriman Madhvacharya in Vishnutattvanirnaya).
The supreme is knowable only through sadaagamas.
So as far as the existence of the Brahman, Mukti etc are concerned, only Scripture is valid.
Śabda needs to be rejected when it doesn't sit well with Anumāna.
api pauruṣamādeyaṃ śāstraṃ cedyuktibodhakam |
anyattvārṣamapi tyājyaṃ bhāvyaṃ nyāyyaikasevinā || 2.18.2 ||
Even human compositions are acceptable when they are instructive of good sense; otherwise the Vedas also are to be renounced (as unreliable); because men are required always to abide by reason.
yuktiyuktamupādeyaṃ vacanaṃ bālakādapi |
anyattṛṇamiva tyājyamapyuktaṃ padmajanmanā || 2.18.3 ||
Words conformable with reason are to be received even if spoken by boys; otherwise they are to be rejected as straws though pronounced by the lotus-born (Brahma himself).
yo'smattātasya kūpo'yamiti kaupaṃ pibatyapaḥ |
tyaktvā gāṅgaṃ purasthaṃ taṃ ko nāśāstyatirāgiṇam || 2.18.4 ||
Whoever drinks from a well by reason of its being dug by his ancestors, and rejects the holy water of the Ganges even when placed before him, is an incorrigible simpleton.