[S05] Mill's methods

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 Õve rules for investigating causes that he has proposed. It has been
 Module: ScientiÕc methodology
suggested that some of these rules were actually discussed by the famous Islamic scientist S00. Introduction
and philosopher Avicenna (980-1037). S01. Theories & evidence
S02. ScientiÕc method
S03. Theory choice
§1. The Method of Agreement S04. Causation
S05. Mill's methods
The best way to introduce Mill's methods is perhaps through an example. Suppose your S06. Causal inferences
family went out together for a buàet dinner, but when you got home all of you started S07. Causal diagrams
S08. Causal fallacies
feeling sick and experienced stomach aches. How do you determine the cause of the
S09. ScientiÕc research
illness? Suppose you draw up a table of the food taken by each family member :

Member / Food taken Oyster Beef Salad Noodles Fallen ill?

Quote of the page

 No rational argument will have a

Mum Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
rational eàect on a man who does not
want to adopt a rational attitude. 
Dad Yes No No Yes Yes
- Karl Popper
Sister Yes Yes No No Yes

You Yes No Yes No Yes

 Help us promote
critical thinking!
Mill's rule of agreement says that if in all cases where an eàect occurs, there is a single
prior factor C that is common to all those cases, then C is the cause of the eàect. 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.  Popular pages
1. What is critical thinking?
§2. The Method of Diàerence 2. What is logic?
3. Hardest logic puzzle ever
Now suppose the table had been diàerent in the following way: 4. Free miniguide
5. What is an argument?
6. Knights and knaves puzzles
Member / Food taken Oyster Beef Salad Noodles Fallen ill?
7. Logic puzzles
8. What is a good argument?
Mum Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9. Improving critical thinking
10. Analogical arguments

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 diàerence 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 diàerence. This rule says that where
you have one situation that leads to an eàect, and another which does not, and the only
diàerence is the presence of a single factor in the Õrst situation, we can infer this factor as
the cause of the eàect.

§3. The Joint Method

The joint method is a matter of applying both the method of agreement and the method of
diàerence, 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 eàect, we Õnd a certain property of the eàect 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 Õnd 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 eàects, and we have reason to believe that all the factors, except one
factor C, are causes for all the eàects, except one, then we should infer that C is the cause
of the remaining eàect.

§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
eàects.
• 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 eàect. But
there is no guarantee that this assumption always holds. Also, sometimes the cause
might be some complicated combinations of various factors.

 previous tutorial  next tutorial

homepage • top • contact • sitemap © 2004-2020 Joe Lau & Jonathan Chan