For some reason general_re decided to lump me together with Dataman (god or the general knows why) making it inconvenient for me to answer decently. So I'll discuss this point I've raised with you in response to your observation.
You say, Why? is more fascinating than How? At times this is so. Some of us are more predisposed to considering the one rather than the other or the one is more fundamental than the other. And I think that you have some legitimate reasons for that preference.
But since I've entered this conversation I should make clear that the points I've raised with general_re (and they are very clear to him--he's clever and knows it) that the misapplication of the conclusion to How? is lurking in his language of "the useful" "except" and "let the chips fall where they may." The issue I've raised has nothing to do with Humean skepticism, (although there is lots there to say, and general_re is saying it) but everything to do with the abuse of reason. I'd have to dig out my Hume to see if this is problem is dealt with in Hume. I didn't come to understand it from reading him. I came to understand it from reading Hayek, Voegelin, Aristotle, and Plato.
I had a truly inspired response to this post last night, so naturally my computer ate it. I'm off to sleep for a bit, but then I'll see if I can't reconstruct it. It's never as good as the first time around when you do that, though ;)