Method Of Agreement Theory
This method is also generally known as the most similar system design in the context of comparative policy. 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 of the foods taken by each member of the family: third, although descriptions of methods of elimination of induction have often been associated with a kind of empiricism on the ground floor, knowledge is entirely occupied with empirical relationships between directly observable things, qualities and processes, the methods themselves are not related to this doctrine, but can establish cause-and-effect relationships between entities that are observed indirectly. For example, as long as there is a possibility, directly or indirectly, to determine when a magnetic field is present and when there is an electrical current in a wire, methods can determine whether such a current will produce a magnetic field. A comprehensive study of such functional dependence would involve two tasks: first, identifying all the factors on which the size of P-F depends and, second, discovering how this order of magnitude depends on these factors. Completion of the first task would give a simple list of terms, those of the second a mathematical formula. Only the first of these tasks can be performed by a method of elimination similar to the one that has already been questioned. 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. 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. So there will not be a method of agreement, a method of difference and a common method, but a number of variations of each. A full survey of all kinds of methods of this type, numbered as follows: A number of 1 to 8 before a decimal comma indicates the mode of adoption. Therefore, it is assumed that there is a real cause, although mill methods are an important part of the serious study of natural phenomena, they have significant restrictions. These methods can only be applied with care if all relevant pre-gonal circumstances are taken into account, which cannot be guaranteed in advance. The method of accompanying variation says that if, in a number of situations that lead to a particular effect, we find some ownership of the effect that varies with variation in a factor common to these situations, then we can infer that factor as a cause. [ii] The Millian approach, advocated by philosopher John Stuart Mill as the centre for the scientific method, focuses on identifying common and different factors in a given situation, which allow us to draw conclusions about the necessary and/or sufficient conditions that explain an event. As a result, for Mill: individual cause-and-effect sequences are mainly recognized by the use of variants of the differential method.