[S05] Mill's methods

 Module: Scientific methodology

 S00. Introduction
 S01. Theories & evidence
 S02. Scientific method
 S03. Theory choice
 S04. Causation
 S05. Mill's methods
 S06. Causal inferences
 S07. Causal diagrams
 S08. Causal fallacies
 S09. Scientific research

 Quote of the page

 Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probably reason why so few engage in
it. 

- Henry Ford

 Help us promote
critical thinking!

 Popular pages

1. What is critical thinking?

2. What is logic?
3. Hardest logic puzzle ever
4. Free miniguide
5. What is an argument?
6. Knights and knaves puzzles
7. Logic puzzles
8. What is a good argument?
9. Improving critical thinking
10. Analogical arguments

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was an English philosopher who wrote on a wide range of
topics ranging from language and science to political philosophy. The so-called "Mill's
methods" are five rules for investigating causes that he has proposed. It has been
suggested that some of these rules were actually discussed by the famous Islamic
scientist and philosopher Avicenna (980-1037).
§1. The Method of Agreement
The best way to introduce Mill's methods is perhaps through an example. Suppose your
family went out together for a buffet dinner, but when you got home all of you started
feeling sick and experienced stomach aches. How do you determine the cause of the
illness? Suppose you draw up a table of the food taken by each family member :

Member / Food taken Oyster Beef Salad Noodles Fallen ill?

Mum Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dad Yes No No Yes Yes
Sister Yes Yes No No Yes
You Yes No Yes No Yes
Mill's rule of agreement says that if in all cases where an effect occurs, there is a single
prior factor C that is common to all those cases, then C is the cause of the effect.
According to the table in this example, the only thing that all of you have eaten is oyster.
So applying the rule of agreement we infer that eating oyster is the cause of the
illnesses.

§2. The Method of Difference

Now suppose the table had been different in the following way:

Member / Food taken Oyster Beef Salad Noodles Fallen ill?

Mum Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dad Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sister Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
You Yes Yes No Yes No
In this particular case you are the only one who did not fall ill. The only difference
between you and the others is that you did not take salad. So that is probably the cause
of the others' illnesses. This is an application the method of difference. This rule says that
where you have one situation that leads to an effect, and another which does not, and
the only difference is the presence of a single factor in the first situation, we can infer
this factor as the cause of the effect.

§3. The Joint Method

The joint method is a matter of applying both the method of agreement and the method
of difference, as represented by the diagram above. So application of the joint method
should tell us that it is the beef which is the cause this time.

Member / Food taken Oyster Beef Salad Noodles Fallen ill?

Mum Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dad Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Sister Yes Yes Yes No Yes
You Yes No No Yes No
§4. The Method of Concomitant Variation
The method of concomitant variation says that if across a range of situations that lead to
a certain effect, we find a certain property of the effect varying with variation in a factor
common to those situations, then we can infer that factor as the cause.

Thus using the same kind of example, we might find that you felt somewhat sick having
eaten one oyster, whereas your sister felt rather not well having eaten a few, and your
father became critically ill having eaten ten in a row. Since the variation in the number of
oysters corresponds to variation in the severity of the illness, it would be rational to infer
that the illnesses were caused by the oysters.

§5. The Method of Residues

According to the method of residues, if we have a range of factors believed to be the
causes of a range of effects, and we have reason to believe that all the factors, except
one factor C, are causes for all the effects, except one, then we should infer that C is the
cause of the remaining effect.

§6. General comments on Mill's methods

Mill's methods should come as no surprise, as these rules articulate some of the
principles we use implicitly in causal reasoning in everyday life. But it is important to note
the limitations of these rules.

 First, the rules presuppose that we have a list of candidate causes to consider. But
the rules themselves do not tell us how to come up with such a list. In reality this
would depend on our knowledge or informed guesses about likely causes of the
effects.
 The other assumption presupposed by these methods is that among the list of
factors under consideration, only one factor is the unique cause of the effect. But
there is no guarantee that this assumption always holds. Also, sometimes the cause
might be some complicated combinations of various factors.