Causation Method Of Agreement
Symbolically, the common method of agreement and difference can be presented as: As an example of the method of difference, consider two similar countries. Country A has a centre-right government, a uniform system and was a former colony. Country B has a centre-right government, a single system, but has never been a colony. The difference between countries is that Country A easily supports anti-colonial initiatives, while country B does not. The difference method would or would not identify the independent variable as the status of each country as a former colony, the dependent variable supporting anticolonial initiatives. This is because the two similar countries have compared, the difference between the two is whether they were previously a colony or not. This then explains the difference with the values of the dependent variables, the former colony supporting decolonization rather than the country without a history of being a colony. But what is sufficient evidence of causality? Although we generally use conditional statements to express our causal beliefs, the logical link, known as material involvement, seems to capture only part of what we have in mind. Although we see the cause as a necessary and sufficient condition for effect, our cause-and-effect concept does not cover our entire concept of cause and effect. There may be less here than the eye strikes; David Hume pointed out that our causal convictions are unjustifiable, even if they come on their own. 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. One of the main characteristics of scientific methodology is verification and falsification. Remember J. 4 that an appeal is made to Dieun if we conclude for lack of evidence that something is the case or not. While there are times when a lack of evidence should lead to a judgment that the original claim is not substantiated (as in a criminal court), this is not the case in scientific practices. 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.