A fundamental and widely accepted objection to the claim that these methods are an important part of the scientific method is that science does not deal or does not deal much with causal relationships in the sense that these methods can detect them. It can be accepted that the formulation and confirmation of hypotheses and theories that make up the greater part of a science such as physics is a scientific procedure that differs from the actual application of these methods. Even the discovery of a law of functional dependence, as noted, is a task that goes beyond what is achieved with our method of accompanying variation. It can also be recognized that many sciences deal with the simple discovery of new objects and the tracing of processes rather than causal relationships. In addition, it was found that these methods cannot logically be the whole scientific procedure, since they require hypotheses that they themselves cannot support. For the simplest variant of the difference method (1.2), we need this observation: a positive instance I1 and a negative instance N1, so that among the possible causes present in I1, one, say A, is missing in N1, but the rest is present in N1. For example: Symbolically, the common method of concordance and difference can be represented as possible: to see how each of the five methods works, let`s look at their practical application to a particular situation. Suppose that on an otherwise uneventful afternoon, the university nurse realizes that an unusual number of students are suffering from severe indigestion. Of course, Ms.
Hayes suspects that this symptom is due to something the students ate for lunch, and I`m sure she wants to know. The nurse wants to find evidence to support a conclusion that “eat?xxxx? causes digestive problems. Milling methods can help. We should expect to find analogs of concomitant variation of the agreement method and the difference method, i.e. ways of arguing for a causal relationship between P and, say, A, both from the observation of cases where P remains constant while A remains constant, but all other potentially relevant factors vary, and case observation, where P varies, while A varies, but all other potentially relevant factors remain constant. And indeed, there are methods of both types, but those of the second type, the analogues of the method of difference, are more important. The common method, associated with this weaker hypothesis, requires enhanced observation in the same way: that is, each of the possible causes, with the exception of A, must be present in both a positive and a negative instance or be absent in a positive instance and a negative instance, then this variant (2.3) always provides the conclusion, that A is both necessary and sufficient. Third, although descriptions of eliminatory methods of induction have often been associated with a kind of ebener empiricism that treats knowledge as completely empirical relationships between directly observable things, qualities, and processes, the methods themselves are not related to this doctrine, but can establish causal relationships between entities that are observed indirectly. .