Module 6: Causal Reasoning
6.2 Mill’s Methods
John Stuart Mill identified five different patterns of reasoning that one could use to discover causes. These are argument forms, the conclusions of which involve a claim to the effect that one thing causes (or is causally related to) another. They can be used alone or in combination, depending on the circumstances. As was the case with analogical reasoning, these are patterns of inference that we already employ unreflectively in everyday life. The benefit in making them explicit and subjecting them to critical scrutiny is that we thereby achieve a metacognitive perspective—a perspective from which we can become more self-aware and effective reasoners. This is especially important in the context of causal reasoning, since, as we shall see, there are many pitfalls in this domain that we are prone to fall into; many common errors that people make when thinking about cause and effect.
6.2.1 Method of Agreement
Imagine that you’ve been suffering from heartburn recently. Seems like at least two or three days a week, by about dinnertime, you have that horrible feeling of indigestion in your chest and that unpleasant taste in your mouth. Acid reflux: ugh. You’ve got to do something about this. What could be causing the heartburn, you wonder? You know that the things you eat and drink are typical causes of the condition, so you start thinking back, looking at what you’ve consumed on the days when you felt bad. As you recall, all of the recent days on which you suffered heartburn were different in various ways: your dinners ranged from falafel to spaghetti to spicy burritos; sometimes you had a big lunch, sometimes very little; on some days you drank a lot of coffee at breakfast, but other days none at all. But now that you think about it, one thing stands out: you’ve been in a nostalgic mood lately, thinking about the good old days, when life felt more carefree. You’ve been listening to lots of music from that time, watching old movies, etc. And as part of that trip down memory lane, you’ve re-acquired a taste for one of your favorite beverages from that era—Mountain Dew. You’ve been treating yourself to a nice bottle of the stuff with lunch now and again. And sure enough, each of the days that you got heartburn was a day when you drank Mountain Dew at lunch. Huh. I guess the Mountain Dew is causing my heartburn. I better stop drinking it.
This little story is an instance of Mill’s Method of Agreement. It’s a pattern of reasoning that one can use to figure out the cause of some phenomenon of interest. In this case, the recent heartburn is the phenomenon for which you want to discover a cause. And eventually, you figure out the cause is Mountain Dew. We could sum up the reasoning pattern abstractly thus:
We want to find the cause of a phenomenon, call it X. We examine a variety of circumstances in which X occurs, looking for potential causes. The circumstances differ in various ways, but they each have in common that they feature the same potential cause, call it A. We conclude that A causes X.
Each of the past circumstances agrees with the others in the sense that they all feature the same potential cause—hence, the Method of Agreement. In the story above, the phenomenon X that we wanted to find the cause of was heartburn; the various circumstances were the days on which you had suffered that condition, and they varied with respect to potential causes (foods and beverages consumed); however, they all agreed in featuring Mountain Dew, which is the factor A causing the heartburn, X.
More simply, we can sum up the Method of Agreement as a simple question:
What causal factor is present whenever the phenomenon of interest is present?
In the case of our little story, Mountain Dew was present whenever heartburn was present, so we concluded that it was the cause.
6.2.2 Method of Difference
Everybody in your house has a rash! Itchy skin, little red bumps; it’s annoying. It’s not just the grownups but the kids, too. Even the dog has been scratching herself constantly! What could possibly be causing our discomfort? You and your partner brainstorm, and remember that you recently changed brands of laundry detergent. Maybe that’s it. So you use the old detergent to re-wash all the laundry (including the pillow where the dog sleeps on the windowsill), and you wait. Sure enough, within a day or two, everybody’s rash is gone. Sweet relief!
This story presents an instance of Mill’s Method of Difference. Again, we use this pattern of reasoning to discover the cause of some phenomenon that interests us—in this case, the rash suffered by all members of the household. We end up discovering that the cause is the new laundry detergent. We isolated this cause by removing that factor and seeing what happened. We can sum up the pattern of reasoning abstractly thus:
We want to find the cause of a phenomenon. Call it X. We examine a variety of circumstances in which X occurs, looking for potential causes. The circumstances differ in various ways, but they each have in common that when we remove from them a potential cause—call it A—the phenomenon disappears. We conclude that A causes X.
If we introduce the same difference in all of the circumstances—removing the causal factor—we see the same effect—the disappearance of the phenomenon. Hence, the Method of Difference. In our story, the phenomenon we wanted to explain, X, was the rash. The varying circumstances are the different inhabitants of the household—the grownups, kids, even the dog—and the different factors affecting them. The factor that we removed from each, A, was the new laundry detergent. When we did that, the rash went away, so the detergent was the cause of the rash—A caused X.
More simply, we can sum up the Method of Difference as a simple question:
What causal factor is absent whenever the phenomenon of interest is absent?
In the case of our little story, when the detergent was absent, so too was the rash. We concluded that the detergent caused the rash.
6.2.3 Joint Method of Agreement and Difference
This isn’t really a new method at all. It’s just a combination of the first two. The Methods of Agreement and Difference are complementary; each can serve as a check on the other. Using them in combination is an extremely effective way to isolate causes.
The Joint Method is an important tool in medical research. It’s the pattern of reasoning used in what we call controlled studies. In such a study, we split our subjects into two groups, one of which is the “control” group. An example shows how this works. Suppose we’ve formulated a pill that we think is a miracle cure for baldness. (We are going to be rich!) But first, we need to see if it really works. So we gather a bunch of bald men together for a controlled study. One group gets the actual drug; the other, the control group, gets a sugar pill—not the real drug at all, but a mere placebo. Then we wait and see what happens. If our drug is as good as we think it is, two things will happen: first, the group that got the drug will grow new hair; and second, the group that got the placebo won’t grow new hair. If either of these things fails to happen, it’s back to the drawing board. Obviously, if the group that got the drug didn’t get any new hair, our baldness cure is a dud. But in addition, if the group that got the mere placebo grew new hair, then something else besides my drug has to be the cause.
Both the Method of Agreement and the Method of Difference are being used in a controlled study. We’re using the Method of Agreement on the group that got the drug. We’re hoping that whenever the causal factor (our miracle pill) is present, so too will be the phenomenon of interest (hair growth). The control group complements this with the Method of Difference. For them, we’re hoping that whenever the causal factor (the miracle pill) is absent, so too will be the phenomenon of interest (hair growth). If both things happen, we’ve got strong confirmation that our drug causes hair growth. (And now we need to figure out how to spend all the money!)
6.2.4 Method of Residues
We’re running a business. Let’s call it “LogiCorp”. For a modest fee, the highly trained logicians at LogiCorp will evaluate all of your deductive arguments, issuing Certificates of Validity (or Invalidity) that are legally binding in all fifty states. Satisfaction guaranteed. Anyway, as should be obvious from that brief description of the business model, LogiCorp is a highly profitable enterprise. But last year’s results were disappointing. Profits were down 20% from the year before. Some of this was expected:
- We undertook a renovation of the LogiCorp World Headquarters that year, and the cost had an effect on our bottom line: half of the lost profits, 10%, can be chalked up to the renovation expenses.
- Also, as healthcare costs continue to rise, we had to spend additional money on our employees’ benefits packages; these expenditures account for an additional 3% of a profit shortfall.
- Finally, another portion of the drop in profits can be explained by the entry of a competitor into the marketplace. The upstart firm Arguments R Us, with its fast turnaround times and ultra-cheap prices, has been cutting into our market share. Their services are totally inferior to ours (you should see the shoddy shading technique in their Venn Diagrams!) and LogiCorp will crush them eventually, but for now, they’re hurting our business: competition from Arguments R Us accounts for a 5% drop in our profits.
Our CEO was, of course, aware of all these potential problems throughout the year, so when we looked at the numbers at the end, we weren’t surprised. But, when we added up the contributions from the three factors we knew about—10% from the renovation, 3% from the healthcare expenditures, and 5% from outside competition—we came up short. Those causes only account for an 18% shortfall in profit, but we were down 20% on the year; there was an extra 2% shortfall that we couldn’t explain. The CEO is a suspicious guy, so they hired an outside security firm to monitor the activities of various highly placed employees at the firm. And we’re glad they did! Turns out the Chief Financial Officer had been taking lavish weekend vacations to Las Vegas and charging his expenses to the company credit card. His thievery surely accounts for the extra 2%. We immediately fired the scoundrel. (Maybe he can get a job with Arguments R Us.)
This little story presents an instance of Mill’s Method of Residues. ‘Residue’ in this context just means the remainder, that which is left over. The pattern of reasoning put abstractly, runs something like this:
We observe a series of phenomena, call them X1, X2, X3, …, Xn. As a matter of background knowledge, we know that X1 is caused by A1, that X2 is caused by A2, and so on. But when we exhaust our background knowledge of the causes of phenomena, we’re left with one, Xn, that is inexplicable in those terms. So we must seek out an additional causal factor, An, as the cause of Xn.
The leftover phenomenon, Xn, inexplicable in terms of our background knowledge, is the residue. In our story, that was the additional 2% profit shortfall that couldn’t be explained in terms of the causal factors we were already aware of, namely the headquarters renovation (A1, which caused X1, a 10% shortfall), the healthcare expenses (A2, which caused X2, a 3% shortfall), and the competition from Arguments R Us (A3, which caused X3, a 5% shortfall). We had to search for another, previously unknown cause for the final, residual 2%.
6.2.5 Method of Concomitant Variation
Fact: if you’re a person who currently maintains a fairly steady weight, and you change nothing else about your lifestyle, adding 500 calories per day to your diet will cause you to gain weight. Conversely, if you cut 500 calories per day from your diet, you would lose weight. That is, calorie consumption and weight are causally related: consuming more will cause weight gain; consuming less will cause weight loss.
Another fact: if you’re a person who currently maintains a steady weight, and you change nothing else about your lifestyle, adding an hour of vigorous exercise per day to your routine will cause you to lose weight. Conversely, (assuming you already exercise a heck of a lot), cutting that amount of exercise from your routine will cause you to gain weight. That is, exercise and weight are causally related: exercising more will cause weight loss; exercising less will cause weight gain.
I know about the cause-and-effect relationships above because of the Method of Concomitant Variation. Put abstractly, this pattern of reasoning goes something like this:
We observe that, holding other factors constant, an increase or decrease in some causal factor A is always accompanied by a corresponding increase or decrease in some phenomenon X. We conclude that A and X are causally related.
Things that vary concomitantly
are things, to put it more simply, that change together. As A changes—goes up or down—X changes, too. There are two ways things can vary concomitantly: directly or inversely. If A and X vary directly, that means that an increase in one will be accompanied by an increase in the other (and a decrease in one will be accompanied by a decrease in the other); if A and X vary inversely, that means an increase in one will be accompanied by a decrease in the other.
In our first example, calorie consumption (A) and weight (X) vary directly. As calorie consumption increases, weight increases; and as calorie consumption decreases, weight decreases. In our second example, exercise (A) and weight (X) vary inversely. As exercise increases, weight decreases; and as exercise decreases, weight increases.
Either way, when things change together in this way, when they vary concomitantly, we conclude that they are causally related.
Exercises
