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. 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. Under the tailings method, if we have a number of factors that are assumed to be the causes of a number of effects, and we have reason to believe that all factors, with the exception of a factor C, are causes of all effects, with the exception of one, we should infer that C is the cause of the residual effect. 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).
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. This reasoning illustrates Mill`s method of residues: many elements of a complex effect are demonstrated by reliable causal beliefs from several elements of a complex cause; All that remains of the effect must have been produced by the remnants of the cause. Note that if we accept the truth of all the relationships of cause, this method becomes an application of the deductive argument. 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. What prompted you to look for the method of agreement? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible). Knowledge expands when we can verify or distort a hypothesis. This is because experimental tests are designed in such a way that the hypothesis is probably a general explanation of certain facts and not an isolated case. This type of experiment is controlled, which means that the experimental structures differ only from one variable (see the miles of difference method). The experimental group is the one that recovers the variable, while the control group does not. 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.