For example, individual causal sequences are primarily identified by the use of variants of the differential method. Antoine-Henri Becquerel discovered that the radium he was carrying in a bottle in his pocket caused a burn, realizing that the presence of radium was the only possible relevant difference between the time the inflammation developed and the previous period when it was not, or between the part of his body where the inflammation occurred. and the other parties. An important use of these methods lies in the progressive position of a cause. If one takes “drinking wine” as a possible cause, an application of 8.2 may show that drinking wine causes poisoning: in other words, this factor is a necessary element in a sufficient state for this result. But we can then continue to analyze this possible cause and find that several factors are included in this single point that we called “drinking wine”, and other experiments can show that only one of these factors was really necessary: the necessary element is then specified. But the fact that this is always possible, leaves true that with regard to the degree of earlier analysis of factors, drinking wine was a necessary element in a sufficient state, and the discovery of this causal law (it is true gross) is just as far as it goes and is an essential step on the way to a more precise law based on a more detailed analysis of the factors. In this case, you are the only one who is not sick. The only difference between you and the others is that you didn`t make a salad. It`s probably the cause of other people`s illnesses. It is an application of the method of difference. This rule says that if you have a situation that leads to an effect, and another that does not, and the only difference is the presence of only one factor in the first situation, we can infer that factor as the cause of the effect. However, to justify this, we need an additional general premise, a hypothesis, such a finding to a general causal conclusion.
We must assume that there is a condition that is necessary and sufficient with regard to the field (or that is necessary or sufficient) for the phenomenon, and also that this condition can be found in a number of conditions that are limited in one way or another. Indeed, these methods fall within the general class of eliminating reasoning, i.e. arguments for which a possibility is confirmed or justified by the elimination of some or all of its competitors. The assumption is said that there is a reason to find and limit the range of candidates for the role of the cause; The role of compliance will be to exclude enough candidates who were originally admitted to allow for a positive conclusion. The general nature of Mills` methods in the experimental study can be illustrated by examples of the two simplest methods, methods of concordance and difference. Mills` canon for the agreement method is as follows: “If two or more cases of the phenomenon under review have only one circumstance in common, the fact that all instances are identical is the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon.” Mills` methods can only reveal evidence of probable causes; they don`t really offer an explanation. The discovery of causalities is an important step towards understanding the world, but it is only part of what we need. We also need to understand how and why some cases of causation work the way they do.
The answers to these questions lead us to the possibility of identifying cause-and-effect relationships. We need to develop theories and hypotheses that underpin the scientific argument. Increasing the number of parties directly involved in the project and some overlap between their tasks can complicate the distribution of risk [Portland Mall Project, Weber County Commuter Rail].