Method Of Agreement Conditions

For the simplest variant of the differential method (1.2), we need this observation: a positive instance I1 and a negative instance N1, so that among the possible causes present in I1, one, say A, is absent from N1, but the rest is present in N1. For example, there will not be one method of consistency, one method of difference and one common method, but a number of variants of each. A complete overview of all possible methods of this type could be carried out as follows: a number from 1 to 8 before a decimal point indicates the nature of the hypothesis. Therefore, there is a real cause which is that this method is generally known as the most similar system design within the framework of comparative policy. Statements of general cause and effect such as “Candy consumption causes tooth decay” are interpreted in the same way as they claim flawless cause and effect laws. Anyone who says so would admit that eating candy has this effect only under certain other conditions or in the absence of certain contrary causes, and he would admit that things other than candy food could cause tooth decay. And such a law of cause and effect gappy can be established by the use of method 8.2 or the method of variation that accompanies it, or by statistical methods that can be interpreted as elaborations of it. However, these general statements of cause and effect must be interpreted as claiming flawless laws of cause and effect, not just statistical correlations: those who use such a statement argue that the gaps could in principle be filled. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was an English philosopher who wrote on a wide range of subjects from language and science to political philosophy. The so-called “Mills” methods are five rules of search for causes that he proposed. It has been assumed that some of these rules were actually discussed by the famous Islamic scientist and philosopher Avicenna (980-1037). Third, although descriptions of eliminative induction methods have often been associated with a kind of empiricism level that treats knowledge as entirely related to empirical relationships between things, qualities, and directly observable processes, the methods themselves are not related to this doctrine, but can establish cause-and-effect relationships between entities that are indirectly observed. For example, as long as there is a direct or indirect possibility of determining when a magnetic field is present and when an electric current is in a wire, methods can determine whether such a current produces a magnetic field.

Unlike the four previous inductive methods, the accompanying variation method does not involve the elimination of circumstances. The change in size of one factor leads to a change in the size of another factor. Mill`s methods can only give indications of probable causes; They don`t really have 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 causality work the way they do. The answers to these questions take us beyond the ability to identify cause-effect relationships….

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.