Method Of Agreement Reasoning
One of the main features of scientific methodology is verification and falsification. Remember Kap. 4, that a call to ignorance is made if we deduce 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 unsubstantiated (as in the case of a criminal court), this is not the case in scientific practice. 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. This situation is an example of Mill`s common method of agreement and difference: the first four students are proof that all those who got sick had eaten grass salad, and the four concordant couples are proof that only those who got sick had eaten grass salad. This is a strong combination of the first two methods, as it tends to support our idea that real causes are needed and sufficient conditions for their effects. Although Mill`s methods are an important part of the serious study of natural phenomena, they have important constraints. Careful application of these methods will only be possible if all relevant pre-anticipated circumstances are taken into consideration, which is not guaranteed in advance. This method is also generally known as the most similar system design in the context of comparative policy. “Method of agreement.” Merriam-Webster.com dictionary, merriam weaver, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/method%20of%20agreement.
Retrieved November 30, 2020. Symbolically, the common method of conformity and difference can be presented as: Another common variant of inductive thinking deals with the existence of cause-and-effect relationships between events. If we have good reason to believe that events of one species (the causes) are systematically linked to events of another type (the effects), we can change our environment by producing (or preventing) the appearance of certain types of events. So far, I`ve talked a lot about observations and how we can improve them, but we often observe to learn something about cause-and-effect relationships, what depends on what? I will conclude our discussion on observations by presenting a framework that will allow us to understand how scientists draw conclusions based on their observations, experiments and simulations. The logic of observational conclusions was described by John Stuart Mill, a philosopher who is best known for writing about freedom, but who also contributed much to what we think of science. Mill was interested in how we could use observations and experiments to determine the causes or what depends on what. He introduced a number of methods of argumentation on empirical data that we now call Mills` methods. I will talk about the first two of his methods; What we now call the convergence method and the disagreement method. Therefore, to think about these methods, let`s distinguish between results and conditions.. . .