The strange career of Millian methods in comparative social science.

The article examines the complex history and interpretation of John Stuart Mill's methods in comparative social science, highlighting a widespread misconception that Mill endorsed the methods of agreement and difference for social research, when in fact he explicitly rejected their applicability to social sciences. While Mill's Book 3 of *A System of Logic* outlined these comparative methods for natural sciences, his preferred approaches for social science—detailed in Book 6—involved deductive methods analogous to astronomical inquiry, emphasizing theory testing and historical process rather than controlled comparison. The article traces the rise, dominance, and subsequent decline of Millian methods in social science from the 1970s to the 1990s, noting that many influential comparative studies have employed diverse, often more nuanced methodologies beyond Mill's prescriptions, reflecting a broader methodological pluralism. Ultimately, Mill's vision of social science as a craft, requiring adaptation to particular cases rather than rigid methodological rules, remains relevant to contemporary comparative research.