please wait, site is loading

Blog

John Stuart Mill Methods Of Agreement

Opublikowano: grudzień 11th, 2020 by foto-klinika |

Perhaps the best way to introduce Mills` methods is an example. Suppose your family went to a buffet dinner together, but when you got home, you started to feel sick and feel stomach pains. How do you determine the cause of the disease? Suppose you create a table with the foods that are taken by each member of the family: To see how each of the five methods works, we consider their practical application to a given situation. Suppose an otherwise uneventful afternoon, the university nurse realizes that an unusual number of students suffer from severe digestive disorders. Of course, Ms. Hayes suspects that this symptom is due to something that the students ate for lunch, and I`m sure she wants to find out. The nurse wants to find evidence that supports a conclusion that “eat?xxxx? causes digestive problems. Mill methods can help. Unlike the four previous inductive methods, the method of accompanying variation does not involve the elimination of any circumstances. The change in size of one factor causes another factor to change in size. This situation is an example of Mills` common method of agreement and difference: the first four students are proof that all those who got sick had eaten coleslaw, and the four matching couples are proof that only those who fell ill had eaten coleslaw. This is a strong combination of the first two methods, as it tends to support our idea that real causes are necessary and that the conditions for their effects are sufficient. Symbolically, the common method of concordance and difference can be presented as: John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was an English philosopher who wrote on a wide range of subjects ranging from language and science to political philosophy.

The so-called “mill” methods are five rules for the search for the causes he has proposed. It has been assumed that some of these rules were in fact discussed by the famous Islamic scientist and philosopher Avicenna (980-1037). The common method deals with both the method of agreement and the method of difference as indicated by the diagram above. The application of the common method should therefore tell us that this time it is beef that is the cause. Precisely determining the causes and effects is not an easy task. We can often confuse or misrepreseg the two because we lack sufficient information. Mill`s methods are attempts to isolate a cause from a complex sequence of events. Philosopher John Stuart Mill has developed a series of five methods (or canons) that analyze and interpret our observations in order to draw conclusions about the cause-and-effect relationships they have. Mills` rule of understanding states that if, in all cases where an effect occurs, there is a single prior C factor common to all of these cases, then C is the cause of the effect. According to the table in this example, the only thing you ate was oysters. Therefore, if we apply the rule of concordance, we conclude that the consumption of oysters is the cause of the disease. Even simply referred to as the “common method,” this principle represents only the application of methods of concordance and difference.

Mills` methods can only reveal evidence of probable causes; they don`t really offer an explanation. The discovery of causalities is an important step towards understanding the world, but it is only part of what we need. We also need to understand how and why some cases of causation work the way they do. The answers to these questions lead us to the possibility of identifying cause-and-effect relationships.