So far, we have only wondered if there are demonstrative methods of this type; But by displaying more precisely what such methods entail, we have also removed some of the more obvious objections to the view that such methods can be used in practice. By introducing the idea of a field, we have given these methods the more modest task of finding the cause of a phenomenon in relation to a field, not of finding the ambitious, absolutely necessary and sufficient conditions. By explicitly introducing the possible causes and the scope, we have exempted the user from the agreement method from establishing the implausible claim that the user`s instances have only one reason in common. Instead, the user must simply assert that he has in common only one of the possible causes, while admitting that all the characteristics that are part of the field or that are constant throughout the field are part of all instances and that there may be other common characteristics, but not among those that he initially deemed relevant. Determining exact cause and effect is not an easy task. We can often confuse them or misinterpret them because we lack sufficient information. Mill`s methods are attempts to isolate a cause from a complex sequence of events. The common method can be interpreted as an indirect method of difference, i.e. the work done by I1 above can be divided into several positive instances and the work done by N1 between several negative instances.
That is, we need (for 1.3) the following observation: many if of one or more positive instances and many sn of one or more negative instances, so that one of the possible causes, say A, is in si and absent from Sn, but each of the other possible causes is available either in at least one positive instance, or in at least one negative instance. Since one of the possible causes is both necessary and sufficient, this leads to the conclusion that this is so. To assess the strength of these criticisms and determine the true value of the removal methods, Mill`s formulation does not need to be discussed in detail. Instead, it is enough to determine what would be valid demonstrative methods that correspond to class mills, and then to ask whether such methods or approaching them have their place in the study of scientific common sense or common sense. By making the necessary assumptions explicit and presenting eliminative methods as deductive reasoning, we have abandoned any pretext for methods like this to solve or eliminate the „induction problem“ in themselves. Where the necessary observations can be made, the final justification for any use of any of these ampliative induction methods depends on the justification of the hypothesis used; And since this thesis is general in its form, it probably needs to be supported by another type of inductive, or at least non-deductive, argumentation. But here we must leave aside this question of definitive justification. To close the list, that is, to show that certain factors are not relevant, we must use an analogue of the compliance method.