> Only a philosopher would ask that question. Any practical person would
> say, "hey, it works! Let's see if it works in this new setting or over
> a period of time!"
Practical people don't have time for philosophy; you can't make much money on it. Just because people are not interested in philosophical problems, however, doesn't mean that they don't exist.
There is nothing wrong or shameful about not being interested in philosophy; there is no law that says you have to be. I'm not interested in a lot of problems in many other intellectual fields, either. But I repeat -- the problems don't vanish just because someone isn't interested in them.
> You keep talking about problems with X and Y and Z; could you
> provide a more detailed argument to support your point of view?
Sorry, but I don't have time right now to give lectures on Hume. It's elementary, Phil 101 stuff. If you have studied philosophy of science for 20 years, you must have heard of him. If not, there are plenty of standard works about Hume, causation, problems of induction, etc. Try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Article, for starters: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________ In all ... philosophical studies, the difficulties and disagreements, of which its history is full, are mainly due to a very simple cause: namely to the attempt to answer questions, without first discovering precisely what question it is which you desire to answer. -- G. E. Moore