# Bacon and Mill have suggested five different methods in order to arrive at a causal connection.

Bacon and Mill have suggested five different methods in order to arrive at a causal connection. These are called methods of experimental inquiry.

The basic procedure adopted in the methods is that through certain principles of elimination the irrelevant factors are eliminated either to prove or discover the causal connection.

Mill’s experimental methods are:

The method of agreement

The method of difference.

The joint method agreement and difference.

The method of concomitant variations.

The method of residues.

The method of agreement:

When a single factor of agreement is noticed between two sets of circumstances in a number of cases, that factor of agreement leads to establish a causal connection.

It is a method of observation.

It is a method discovery rather than proof.

It is a method of single agreement.

It has wider range of application.

In this procedure one can proceed from cause to effect and effect to cause.

This method is not helpful in case of plurality of causes.

One may commit the fallacy of non-observation in this method.

This method fails to distinguish between cause and condition and also between cause and co-effect.

This method is not helpful in case of conjunction of causes and inters mixture of effects.

The conclusion drawn through this method is always probable.

The method of difference:

Among two instances if there is a single factor of difference the differential factors may be causally connected.

It is a method of experiment.

It is a method of proof.

It is a method of single difference.

It requires only two instances.

Causal connection established through this method has a higher degree of probability.

In this method the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc is liable to be committed.

In this method we cannot pass-from effect to cause.

This method fails to distinguish cause from condition.

This method fails in case of permanent cause.

This method is not applicable in case of a complex event, which is beyond our Control.

Joint Method of Agreement and Difference.

Between two sates of instances (one positive other negative) if any two factors agree in presence in positive instances and also agree in absence in negative instances then the two may be causally connected.

It is primarily a method of observation.

It is a method of proof.

It is a method of double agreement.

The result of this method is more probable.

It is not free from the difficulty of plurality of causes.

It fails to distinguish between cause and co-existence and cause from co-effect.

It cannot be applied in case of permanent causes or conjunction of causes and intermixture of effects.

The method of concomitant variation:

It two phenomena vary together in a number of instances then they may be causally connected.

It is a modification of either the method of agreement or the method of difference.

This method is based on the quantitative aspect of causation.

The method is sometimes called a graphic method.

It is helpful in case of permanent causes.

Here the conclusion is more probable.

This method is helpful in case of intermixture of effects.

This method is applicable up to a certain limit but not beyond that.

This method fails to distinguish between cause and condition.

The method of residues.

In case of a complex instance if the causal connection of certain factors is known, then the remaining factors may be considered as causally connected.

It is a method of discovery.

It is a modification of the method of difference.

It is essentially a method of deduction.

It is helpful in case of complex events.

It is not helpful in case of plurality of causes.