To see how each of the five methods works, we look at its practical application to a particular situation. Suppose that on an uneventful afternoon, the university nurse realizes that an unusual number of students suffer from severe digestive disorders. Ms. Hayes suspects of course that this symptom is due to something the students ate for lunch, and I`m sure she wants to find out. The nurse wants to find evidence that supports the conclusion that „eat?xxxx? causes digestive disorders. Mill`s methods can help us. Mill`s Methods are five methods of induction described by the philosopher John Stuart Mill in his book A System of Logic, published in 1843. [1] That they shed light on questions of causality. This diagram of argument illustrates Mills` residue method: many elements of a complex effect result from reliable cause-and-effect beliefs of several elements of a complex cause; What remains of the effect must then have been produced by what remains of the cause. Note that if we adopt the truth of all the causal relationships involved, this method becomes an application of deductive thinking. What prompted you to follow the method of the agreement? Please let us know where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible). „Method of agreement.“ Merriam-Webster.com dictionary, merriam weaver, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/method%20of%20agreement. Retrieved November 30, 2020.

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. The accompanying variation method says that if we find in a number of situations leading to a particular effect, a certain property of the effect, which varies with the variation in a factor common to these situations, then we can deduce this factor as cause. Under the residue 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 but one factor are the cause of all the effects, we should conclude that C is the cause of the remaining effect. Knowledge is extended if we can verify or falsify a hypothesis. This is due to the fact that experimental tests are designed in such a way that the hypothesis is probably a generalized explanation of certain facts and not an isolated case. This type of experiment is controlled, which means that the experimental structures differ by only one variable (see Mills` difference method). The experimental group is the one that receives the variable, while the control group does not. Mills` rule of conformity states that if, in all cases where an effect occurs, there is a single anterior C factor common to all those cases, then C is the cause of the effect. . . .