In AN 3:65, while advising the Kalamas on how to choose among a variety of contradictory belief systems, the Buddha mentions ten inadequate criteria for truth:
Come, Kalamas. Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of texts, by logic, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think, 'The ascetic is our teacher.'
I am interested in the four criteria that seem to relate to verbal reasoning (an alternative translation in parentheses):
- Logic (surmise)
- Inferential reasoning (axiom)
- Reasoned cogitation (specious reasoning)
- Acceptance of a view after pondering it (bias towards a notion that has been pondered)
Bikkhu Bodhi has a footnote that, much to my consternation, says of these criteria,
[They are] four types of reasoning recognized by thinkers in the Buddha's age; their differences need not detain us here.
I understand the main point being made (that we should go by direct experience), but I am curious about the precise meaning of these four criteria. I am looking for an answer that explains the differences between these four types of reasoning by providing an example of each one from everyday life. Bonus for any relevant historical context.