Topic
Mill's Methods
About: Mill's Methods is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 14 publications have been published within this topic receiving 5233 citations.
Papers
TL;DR: In this article, the authors use a particular model for causal inference (Holland and Rubin 1983; Rubin 1974) to critique the discussions of other writers on causation and causal inference.
Abstract: Problems involving causal inference have dogged at the heels of statistics since its earliest days. Correlation does not imply causation, and yet causal conclusions drawn from a carefully designed experiment are often valid. What can a statistical model say about causation? This question is addressed by using a particular model for causal inference (Holland and Rubin 1983; Rubin 1974) to critique the discussions of other writers on causation and causal inference. These include selected philosophers, medical researchers, statisticians, econometricians, and proponents of causal modeling.
5,751 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a statistical model for causal inference is used to critique the discussions of other writers on causation and causal inference, including selected philosophers, medical researchers, statisticians, econometricians, and proponents of causal modelling.
Abstract: Problems involving causal inference have dogged at the heels of Statistics since its earliest days. Correlation does not imply causation and yet causal conclusions drawn from a carefully designed experiment are often valid. What can a statistical model say about causation? This question is addressed by using a particular model for causal inference (Rubin, 1974; Holland and Rubin, 1983) to critique the discussions of other writers on causation and causal inference. These include selected philosophers, medical researchers, statisticians, econometricians, and proponents of causal modelling.
916 citations
1 Jan 2014
TL;DR: For example, the authors criticizes Qualitative Compara-tive Analysis (QCA) for its reliance on Mill's methods of agreement and difference, which are inappropriate in the social sciences; applied re-searchers for having perverted the method's original objective of deductive theory testing to generate theory; and the method itself for being highly sensitive to missing data and measurement error.
Abstract: After years of silence on the method of Qualitative Compara-tive Analysis (QCA), the journal Political Analysis—generally considered the organ of cutting-edge political methodol-ogy—lately featured an intriguing piece by one of its editorial board members.1 In this article, Hug (2013) criticizes (1) QCA for its reliance on Mill’s methods of agreement and difference, which are inappropriate in the social sciences; (2) applied re-searchers for having perverted the method’s original objective of deductive theory testing to generate theory; and (3) the method itself for being highly sensitive to missing data and measurement error, a fact he accuses QCA’s proponents of having swept under the rug. He further claims to be offering remedies to the last problem in particular and concludes that, since the discipline now seems to agree on the central mes-sage of King, Keohane and Verba (1994) that a single standard for conducting social-scientific enquiry applies, the use of QCA may soon simply fade away.
19 citations
TL;DR: The authors showed that Lipton's account of explanation makes an adequate explanation depend on a principle which is virtually identical to Mill's Method of Difference, which has the result of collapsing IBE into causal inference as conceived by the Causal-Inference model of induction.
Abstract: Peter Lipton has attempted to flesh out a model of Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) by clarifying explanation in terms of a causal model. But Lipton's account of explanation makes an adequate explanation depend on a principle which is virtually identical to Mill's Method of Difference. This has the result of collapsing IBE on Lipton's account of it into causal inference as conceived by the Causal-Inference model of induction. According to this model, many of our inductions are inferences from effects to their probable causes, and Mill's Methods are canons to guide such inferences. Thus, Lipton's account of IBE fails to represent an advance over the already familiar Causal-Inference Model of induction.
17 citations
Related Topics (5)
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2020 | 1 |
| 2018 | 2 |
| 2015 | 2 |
| 2014 | 1 |
| 2000 | 2 |
| 1997 | 1 |