Hello Viewers Today’s We are going to Share With You, Class 12 Logic and Philosophy Chapter 4 Mill’s Method of Experimental Enquiry Question Answer in English Medium. AHSEC Class 12 Logic and Philosophy Chapter 4 Mill’s Method of Experimental Enquiry, Which you can Download PDF Class 12 Logic and Philosophy Chapter 4 Mill’s Method of Experimental Enquiry Notes for free using direct Download Link Given Below in This Post.
Class 12 Logic and Philosophy Chapter 4 Mill’s Method of Experimental Enquiry
Today’s We have Shared in this Post, Assam Board Logic and Philosophy Class 12 Question Answer English Medium for Free. Hs 2nd Year Logic and Philosophy Solutions, HS 2nd Year Logic and Philosophy Question Answer English Medium. I hope, you Liked the information about the HS 2nd Year Logic and Philosophy Question Answer PDF Download. if you liked Logic and Philosophy Class 12 Notes English medium Then please do Share this Post With your Friends as Well.
Mill’s Method of Experimental Enquiry
| GROUP – A |
| A. VERY SHORT TYPE QUESTION & ANSWER |
1. How many experimental methods are recognised by Mill?
Ans: Five.
2. What according to Mill are the fundamental methods of induction?
Ans: The Method of Agreement and the Method of Difference.
3. What is the aim of Mill’s Inductive Methods?
Ans: The aim of Mill’s Inductive Method is to establish a general real proposition.
4. What is meant by the canon of elimination?
Ans: The aim of science is to discover and find out a causal connection between two facts. Qualitatively, a cause is the immediate, unconditional, invariable, antecedent of the effect and quantitatively a cause is equal to the effect. The canons of elimination are based on this relationship between cause and effect.
5. How many instances are required to apply the Method of Agreement?
Ans: Many instances.
6. How Many instances are required to apply the Method of Difference?
Ans: Two instances are required for the method of Difference.
7. What is the meaning of the fallacy of ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc?’
Ans: The cause is an antecedent. But any and every antecedent is not the cause. To mistake any and every antecedent as the cause of an even is to commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
8. “The conclusion of the Method of Agreement is certain’- It is true?
Ans: No, it is not certain.
9. The conclusion of the Method of Difference is certain’- Do you agree?
Ans: Yes.
10. The Method of concomitant variation is specially applicable in permanent cause or temporary case?
Ans : Permanent cause.
11. The Joint Method of Agreement and Difference requires – of instances.
Ans: Two sets.
12. Careless use of the Method of leads to the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Ans: Difference.
13. The Method of Agreement is liable to be vitiated by the possibility of –
Ans: Plurality of causes.
14. Name the fallacy which sometimes vitiates the Method of Difference when employed as a method of observation.
Ans: The fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.”
15. “The Method of Agreement is pre-eminently a Method of Observation” – Is it true?
Ans: Yes, it is true.
16. “The Method of Difference is pre-eminently a method of ___________.
Ans : Experiment.
17. The Method of Agreement is able/is not able to distinguish causation from co-existence.
Ans: The Method of Agreement is not able to distinguish causation from co-existence.
18. “As heat increases, the mercury in the thermometer expands in volume. Therefore, heat is the cause of expansion of mercury” – Name the experimental Method by which the above conclusion has been made.
Ans: The Method of Concomitant Variation.
| B. SHORT TYPES ANSWER |
1. What are the different kinds of Inductive method according to Mill? Write the names of these methods?
Ans: There are five experimental methods of induction, as recognised By J.S, Mill.
They are as follows:
(i) The Method of Agreement.
(ii) The Method of Difference.
(iii) The Joint Method of Agreement and Difference.
(iv) The Method of Concomitant Variation.
(v) The Method of Residues.
2. Write the canon of the Method of Agreement.
Ans. The method of Agreement is based on the following canon of Elimination:
“Whatever antecedent can be left out without prejudice to the effect can be no part of the cause.”
3. On the basis of what fundamental principle of Elimination the method of Difference is formulated?
Ans: “When an antecedent can not be left out without the consequent disappearing, such antecedent must be the cause or a part of the cause.”
4. What are the materials needed to apply the method of Difference?
Ans: Ajar filled with air, a vacuum jar and a bell are the materials needed to apply the method of Difference.
5. What is the special feature of the method of Concomitant variation?
Ans: The method of concomitant variation is applicable to those cases where complete elimination is not possible.
Again, in order to determine, the casual connection by quantitative variation, only this method is of great use.
6. Why the conclusion of the method of Agreement is not certain?
Ans: The conclusion of the method of Agreement is not certain because this method is essentially a method of observation. The sort of instances which it requires can be supplied by observation. So, this method suggest a causal connection but cannot prove it. Thus the conclusion of the method of Agreement gives us probable conclusion.
7. On which canon of Elimination the Method of Resides is based?
Ans: The Method of Resides is based on the following canon of Elimination:
“Nothing is the cause of a phenomenon which is known to be the cause of a different phenomenon.”
8. ‘The method of Agreement is essentially a method of observation’- why?
Ans: The method of Agreement is essentially a method of observation because it is applied to those cases where our control over the phenomenon under investigation is so limited that Experiments are not possible. Any instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs may be examined for the purpose of this method.
9. Give an example of the method of concomitant variation.
Ans: As Heat increases, the murcury in the thermometer expands in volume. So, we conclude that Heat is the cause of expansion of Mercury.
10. “The conclusion of the Joint Method is highly probable”- why?
Ans: The possibility of the causal connection between two events which is detected by the Method of Agreement is confirmed by the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference. But the conclusion found in this method always remain uncertain. Because it is basically a method of observation. Still it is more reliable method than the Method of Agreement and certainly an improvement upon the Method of Agreement. Thus, we can say that the conclusion of the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference is highly probable.
11. Mention the principle of elimination which forms the basis of the Method of Agreement.
Ans: The principle of elimination which forms the basis of the Method of Agreement is-“Whatever antecedent can be left out without prejudice to the effect can be no part of the cause.”
12. Define Method of Elimination.
Ans: Method of Elimination is the exclusion of irrelevant factors in order that a causal connection may be discovered and proved.
13. Why are the Inductive Methods called Method of Elimination?
Ans: Elimination means the exclusion of accidental circumstances. The function of Inductive Methods is purely negative. They are concerned merely with the exclusion of accidental and irrelevant circumstances. To prove a causal connection, accidental circumstances are eliminated in order that accidental circumstances may be brought out and determined. So, the Inductive Methods are called Method of Elimination.
| S.L No. | CONTENTS |
| Chapter – 1 | Nature Of Inductive Enquiry, Various Kinds Of Induction |
| Chapter – 2 | Grounds Of Induction |
| Chapter – 3 | Hypothesis |
| Chapter – 4 | Mill’s Method Of Experimental Enquiry |
| Chapter – 5 | Realism-Naive Realism & Scientific Realism |
| Chapter – 6 | Idealism – Subjective Idealism & Objective Idealism |
| Chapter – 7 | Ethics |
| Chapter – 8 | Religion |
| C. SHORT TYPE ANSWERS |
1. State three advantages of the Method of Agreement.
Ans: The three advantages of the Method of Agreement are:
(a) The Method of Agreement is pre-eminently a method of observation. So, it has a wide range of application than the method of experiment. As whatever can be experimented can also be observed, but whatever can be observed may not be experimented. Therefore, the Method of Agreement has a wider scope.
(b) The Method of Agreement enables us to proceed from the cause to the effect and from the effect to the cause. As this method is a method of observation. So, we can move from cause to its effect and from effect to its cause to find out the causal connection.
(c) In any scientific enquiry the method of Agreement helps to frame hypothesis relating to causal connection.
2. State three advantages of the Method of Difference.
Ans: The three advantages of the Method of Difference are:
(a) The application of the Method of Difference is very simple. Because, the two instances require to determine the cause effect relation are sufficient.
(b) The Method of Difference can prove causal connection. So, it is considered as the best method of experimental enquiry.
(c) In the other methods of experimental enquiry also, if experiment can be applied then the Method of Difference can function effectively.
3. “The method of Difference can prove a cause but not the cause”- Explain.
Ans. The Method of Difference is not totally free from the difficulties arising out of the plurality of causes. Here we can prove that a particular event is the cause of a particular effect. But from it we cannot prove that the said cause is the only cause of the effect. In other cases, some other event may be proved as the cause. Therefore, we can say that the Method of Difference can prove a cause but not the only cause.
4. “The Method of Agreement cannot distinguish between the cause and co-effect”- Explain.
Ans: According to the Method of Agreement if two events are invariably found to be present or they are invariably succeeding one another then they are causally connected. But from this we cannot say that the invariable antecedent is the cause of the invariable consequent. For example, ‘day’ is the invariable antecedent of the ‘night’. But from this we cannot say that ‘day’ is the cause of ‘night’. In fact ‘day’ and ‘night’ are the co-effects of the same cause i.e. the rotation of the earth on its own axis. So, the Method of Agreement cannot distinguish between the cause and co-effect.
5. “The Joint Method is certainly an improvement upon the Method of Agreement’- explain.
Ans: It is said that the Joint Method is certainly as improvement upon the method of Agreement. Because, the Method of Agreement suggests but cannot prove the cause effect relation. Only the Joint Method can confirm the cause effect relation very effectively because the negative set of instances plays a vital role in it. The Joint Method is more or less free from the difficulty arising out of the possibility of the plurality of causes as there are two sets of instances. The possibility of the causal connection between two events which is detected by the Method of Agreement is confirmed by the Joint Method. But as the Joint Method is basically a method of observation, so the conclusion remains uncertain. But still the Joint Method is more reliable and improved method than the Method of Agreement.
6. State three advantages of the Method of Concomitant variation.
Ans: The three advantages of the Method of concomitant variation are:
(a) In order to find the causal connection related to permanent causes, only the Method of Concomitant variation can effectively be applied.
(b) The Method of Concomitant variation is the only quantitative method among all other methods. So, to find out the quantitative relation of cause and effect this method is of great use.
(c) This method can be used as supplementary to other methods.
7. Mention the advantages of the Method of Residues.
Ans: The advantages of the Method of Residues are:
(a) The Method of Residues helps extensively in any discovery.
(b) This method determined the causal relation between a complex cause and complex effect.
(c) By the Method of Residues we can pass from the cause to the effect and from the effect to the cause.
(d) All inductive methods are in one or other way, dependent on the Method of Residues.
8. Mention three disadvantages of the Method of Agreement.
Ans: The three disadvantages of the Method of Agreement are:
(a) Practical Imperfection.
(b) Characteristic Imperfection.
(c) Problem in distinguishing causation from co-effects and co- existence.
9. “The Method of Difference can not distinguish between the cause and a condition”- Explain with examples.
Ans: In the application of the Method of Difference it is seen that a particular element takes a leading role in functioning the effect. But that particular element can not be considered as the whole cause of the effect. For example, a cup of tea cannot be tasty without the adequate quantity of sugar. But the adequate quantity of sugar is just one of the conditions of a tasty cup of tea. Other conditions like requisite quantity and quality of tea leaves, milk, the appetite of the drinker etc. are also indispensable components of the cause. So, it is said that the method of Difference cannot distinguish between the cause and a condition.
10. How can the disadvantages of the Method of Agreement be removed to some extent?
Ans: The disadvantages of the Method of Agreement can be removed to some extent in the below mentioned way:
(a) The failure of the Method of Agreement due to the plurality of causes can be removed by the multiplication of instances. If we take a large number of instance and find that one circumstance is present in all of them, our conclusion becomes highly probable. We can also apply the Joint Method to overcome the difficulties of Plurality of causes.
(b) Again, the problem of Practical Imperfection can be overcome only to some extent by the multiplication of instances. If we take large number of instances into account the chances of overcoming the difficulty will be high.
| D. LONG TYPE ANSWERS |
1. Write short note on the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Ans: A careless use of the Method of Difference sometimes leads to the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The appearance of a comet in the sky may be followed by the death of king, but we certainly can not argue that the appearance of the comet is the cause of the death. In practical life we depend on simple observation for the supply of instances, but in such cases the Method of Difference does not yield conclusive results. In order to agree with the special requirements of this Method the instances must be supplied by Experiment.
2. What is meant by experimental methods? How many experimental methods are recognised by Mill? Write the name of these methods.
Ans: Scientific Induction aims at the discovery and proof of a causal connection among phenomena with a view to establishing a general proposition. Logicians have formulated certain “methods” or devices by which causal connections among phenomena are investigated. i.e., by means of which causes and effects of given phenomena are discovered and proved. These methods of causal investigation have been called Experimental Methods. Mill formulated five Experimental Methods. They are – the Method of Agreement, the Method of Difference, the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference, the Method of Concomitant variations, and the Method of Residues.
3. “The Method of Agreement is a method of observation’- Amplify.
Ans: To say that, “The Method of Agreement is pre eminently a Method of observation”, does not mean that the Method of Agreement is limited. to Simple observation only and can not be applicable to Exoperimental cases. Experiment does not exclude observation. So, the Method of Agreement can certainly be applied in cases of Experiment also. To say that the Method of Argument is pre-eminently a method of observation means that, it is applied to those cases where our control over the phenomenon under investigation is so limited that Experiments are not possible. Any instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs may be examined for the purpose of this method.
4. Why is the method of difference called a method of experiment?
Ans: The Method of Difference is essentially a Method of Experiment. Because, in experiment we may be sure having complied with strict requirements of this method. Here two required instances must be exactly alike, except one, in which the phenomenon under investigation is present and in the other it is absent. Now we can never be sure that the instances furnished by observation are instances of this special kind. In experiment, we have control of the conditions and are able to vary them at our will. Thus this Method can be successfully applied only in the case of Experiment.
5. Write the canon of the Method of Difference. What are the materials needed to apply this method?
Ans: The canon of Elimination which is used in the Method of Difference is “When an antecedent can not be left out without the consequent disappearing, such antecedent must be the cause or a part of the cause.
In this method two instances are collected these two instances one is positive instance, while the other is negative. The materials that is needed to apply the Method of Difference are a jar filled with air, a vacuum jar and a bell. In the presence of air the sound will be heard. This is called positive instance. In the negative instance, the air is absent from the jar and the sound will not be heard.
| E. LONG TYPE ANSWERS |
1. Explain with illustration the Method of Agreement.
Ans: According to the method of Agreement.: If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one circumstances in common, the circumstance in which alone all the instances agree is the cause (or the effect) of the given phenomenon.” from this principle, it follows that if some circumstance be always present, when the given phenomenon is present, there is causal connection between them. Suppose we want to find out the cause of Malarial fever. We collect several instances where it occurs and find on observation, that every one of these cases is preceded by the bite of anopheles mosquitoes, while other circumstances are different. Hence the common antecedent viz. the bite of anopheles, is the cause of malarial fever.
This method has been called by Mill, “the Method of Agreement”, because “this method proceeds by comparing different instances to ascertain in which they agree.” The Method of Agreement is pre-eminently a method of observation, as distinguished from Experiment. This description does not mean that the Method of Agreement is limited to simple observation and can not be applied to cases where Experiments are possible. Experiment does not exclude observation is certainly possible. So, that method of Agreement does not require instances of any special and definite character. Any instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs may be examined for the purpose of this method. So, observation can supply its instances.
2. Explain and illustrate the Method of Difference.
Ans: According to Mill, “if an instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs, and an instance in which it does not occur, have every circumstance in common save one, that one occuring only in the former, the circumstance in which alone the two instances differ is the effect, or the cause, or an indispensable part of the cause, of the phenomenon.” The Method of Difference is based on the principle that whatever can not be eliminated without interfering with the phenomenon under investigation must be causally connected with the later. If a circumstance be left out and the phenomenon under investigation disappears, everything else being the same, there must be causal connection between the two. For example-If a bell is rung in a jar filled with air, the sound of the bell is heard, but if the same bell is rung in a jar from which the air has been pumped out, no sound is heard. Other circumstances remain the same. So, the presence of air is an indispensable part of the cause of sound.
3. Write three advantages and two disadvantages of the Method of Difference.
Ans: As the scope of observation is wider than that of Experiment, so the Method of Agreement can be applied to all the various fields of investigation. Again, as by observation we can find the cause of any effect as well as can find the effect of any given cause. So, the Method of Agreement is applicable to the discovery and proof of the causal connection in both directions, from the cause to the effect as well as from the effect to the cause. Hence the Method of Agreement is superior to other methods.
Demerits of the Method of Difference:
(i) The Method of Difference can not be directly applied to reasoning from effect to cause. In experiment, we can proceed from cause to effect, but can not go backward from effect to cause. The effects are not within our control. As the Method of Difference is essentially a Method of Experiment so also the Method can not be directly applied to reasoning from effect to cause.
(ii) The Method of Difference does not enable us to deal completely with the plurality of causes. The Method of Difference can only prove that a particular antecedent is the cause in a given case but can not prove that it is the only cause.
(iii) The Method of Difference does not enable us to distinguish a cause from a condition. The introduction of a new element is not necessarily the sole cause of any change which may happen.
4. Explain and illustrate the Method of Residues. Is this method a special modification of the Method of Difference?
Ans: According to Mill, “Subduct from any given phenomenon such part as is known by previous induction to be the effect of certain antecedents, and the residues of the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining antecedents. “For example- we weigh a loaded cart and note the weight. We already know the weight of the cart alone. By subtracting the weight of the cart from the total weight of the loaded cart, we conclude that the differece is the weight of the load. This method is based on the principle that what is the cause of one thing can not be the cause of a different thing. When we are dealing with a complex set of phenomena, and we already know the cause of some of them, we conclude that the cause of the remainder or residual phenomenon is to be found among the remaining antecedents.
The method of Residues is a special modification of the Method of Difference. Because, the principle underlying both these methods is the same viz., if there are two instances which differ only in one circumstance which is present in one instance, and absent in the other, then the circumstance in which alone the two groups of antecedents differ, is the cause of the other circumstance in which alone the two groups of consequenes differ. The difference between the two methods is that, in the Method of Difference, the instance in which the circmustance does not occur is supplied by Experiment, whereas in the Method of Residues, that instance is supplied by deduction from previous inductions.
5. State two advantages and two disadvantages of the Method of Agreement. How are the disadvantages remedied?
Ans: The two advantage of Method of Agreement are:
(i) The range of observation is wider than the of Experiment.
(ii) The Method of Agreement is applicable to the discovery and proof of the causal connection in both directions.
The two disadvantage of the Method of Agreement are:
(i) Characteristic Imperfection: The method of agreement is liable to the frustrated by the plurality of causes.
(ii) Practical Imperfection: In the Method of Agreement, it is impossible to assure ourselves that we know all the antecedents.
The disadvantages can be remedied in the below mentioned ways:
(i) One remedy of the failure of the Method of Agreement due to the Plurality of causes is the Multiplication of instances. If we take a large number of instance and find that one circumstance is present in all of them, our conclusion becomes highly probable. Again, the application of the joint Method helps us in overcoming the difficulties of Plurality of causes.
(ii) The problem of Practical Imperfection can be overcome only to some extent by the multiplication of instances. If we take large number of instances into account, the chances of overcoming the difficulty will be high. But this difficulty can not be wholly overcome.
6. What do you mean by the Methods of Experimental Enquiry? State three canons of Elimination involved in these methods.
Ans: The Methods of Experimental Enquiry solves the problem of determining causal connection. It is not easy task to establish cause-effect relation as the natural phenomenon are intermixed in a very complex manner. So to migrate this problem, Mill formulated the experimental methods.
The three canons of Elimination are:
(i) “Whatever antecedent can be left out, without prejudice to the effect, can be no part of the cause.”
(ii) “When an antecedent can not be left out, without the consequent disappearing, such antecedent must be the cause or a part of the cause.
(iii) “An Antecedent and a consequent rising and falling together in numerical concomitance are to be held as cause and effect.”
7. Give a concrete example of the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference. Why this method is called the Method of Double Agreement?
Ans: A concrete example of the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference:
Malaria is present in the places where there are anopheles mosquitoes. Again, in the places where there are no anopheles mosquitoes, malaria is absent. Therefore, on the basis of this observation we can conclude that anopheles mosquito is the cause of Malaria.
In the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference we find “agreement of presence” of the positive instances and “agreement of absence” of the negative instances. By this double method of agreement of absence and presence, cause-effect relation is established. Therefore, this method is called “The Method of Double Agreement.”
8. What do you mean by the method of residue? Is the Method of Residues Deductive?
Ans: Subduct from any given phenomenon such part as is, known by previous induction to be the effect of certain antecedents and the residue of the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining antecedents. This is called the method of residue.
In all that observation does, is to show that certain antecedents are followed by certain consequents. Then begins the process of calculation or deduction. We calculate the effects of known causes and subtract this calculated effect from the total effect. In this way the residual consequent is found to be the effect of the residual antecedent. Direct experience plays a comparatively unimportant part while calculation or deduction figures largely. So, the Method of Residues has been regarded as essentially a Method of Deduction.
Hi! I’m Ankit Roy, a full time blogger, digital marketer and Founder of Roy Library. I shall provide you all kinds of study materials, including Notes, Suggestions, Biographies and everything you need.
