pynchon-l-digest V2 #4485

[Cometman]

>From: Rcfchess at aol.com

>In a message dated 09/27/2005 9:26:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
>ioannissevastianos at yahoo.gr writes:
>>Er... I  thought Hume was a philosopher...?
>>Cyrus

>>>Dave Monroe  wrote:
>>>It ALL requires a leap of faith.  See, e.g., Hume  ...

>>>>--- malignd at aol.com wrote:
>>>>Science requires no leap of  faith....

>Guess this is going on a slight tangent, but it  does bring up the 
>question: what, really, is the difference between  philosophy and
>science? Both are after truth, after all...
>    My first guess (feel free to disagree, everyone)  (as though
anyone 
>on the list needed permission!), or hypothesis,  really, is that, 
>basically, science asks how and philosophy asks why.  Although, in
some >ways, philosophy does ask how as well; but science never  really
delves >into why (though some scientists do, as people). On the other 
hand, >religion doesn't really ask much at all, but mostly just
tells...
>RF

The relevance of Hume is that he noted that we can not really be sure
that _anything_ "causes" _anything else_ at all.
All we know is that we see certain things happen together or
sequentially. The profound questioning of causation is what I remember
best from a philosophy class ("Empiricists") I took in 1977, taught by
a Dr. Edge (great name)  Shortly after that I went mad (no, not really,
but it makes a better anecdote)