Talk:Mill's Methods

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Logic Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Logic

Examples[edit]

Maybe we should include some real world examples like there are in this article: http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e14.htm CarbonUnit 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)CarbonUnit[reply]

Absolutely. The ordinary reader is likely to feel lost with no concrete examples to apply these ideas to. Richard001 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but who should do it? Llamabr (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else, obviously. I just downloaded the eBook and, when I have time will see what I can do, as well as provide some discussion on the logical fallacies and cognitive errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.178.5 (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The examples should be scientific ones, not political ones. Using politics is too distracting. But also Mill said the four Methods do not apply to politics. The issues there are too complicated. That was a major theme in System of Logic: some fields are too complicated for induction, the (hypothetico-)deductive method must be used instead, politics is one such discipline.John P. McCaskey (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be noted that ″Direct method of agreement″ is wrong?[edit]

Consider the example... if the logic controlling whether "w" is TRUE is (A AND B) OR (A AND E) then "A" is not "the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon". The following paragraph states the correct interpretation... "A" is necessary but there's no proof that it's sufficient. Michael McGinnis (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Therefore A is the cause of w. " (! sic)[edit]

"Therefore A is the cause of w." (! sic)

-> "Therefore A is either the cause or the effect of w." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.147.148.15 (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this. Remember to BE BOLD. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, including you. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough instances where the phenomenon doesn’t occur in the indirect method of differences?[edit]

Shouldn’t there be at least four instances in that example? 129.94.8.7 (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]