If the USA Today reader claimed his life is better because he reads USA Today, I would judge him just as irrational.

But what usually happens is that the person reading, usually secondhand, research publications makes the changes in behavior for the sole purpose of self-improvement, and he takes credit for it: "I quit drinking heavily because I care about my life."

He doesn't credit the source of the information for his betterment. He knows he could just as easily get health news, movie listings, cooking recipes, travel trips and Soduku from any other newspaper. Should he make wise stock-picks or improve his health, USA Today would not be the first to be thanked for this, because, most certainly, he gathers news from various other sources.

I understand and appreciate your point. However, it is common for someone in that situation to describe their rationale as "recent scientific studies" or words to that effect.

One might even observe that the person claiming a scientific rationale for their behavior is typically further removed from the evidence they cite than a person relying on a religious text (which they have often read directly). Many people are predisposed to accept the claim of a scientific basis unquestioningly (a point brought out by the original article) and to dismiss claims based on religious texts as unthinking dogma. Yet we are ready to accept the intellectual validity of "Catcher in the Rye" changed my life.

I don't see any reason to believe that a person claiming to rely on science has more claim to acting for the sake of self improvement than a person relying on religious teachings. Both care deeply about their lives.

I completely understand what you mean and it bugs me to hear, often from myself, that a certain work of fiction "changed my life". Sometimes in exaggeration, to emphasize our appreciation, but often not.

And yes, I get your point about blind trust of "published" materials.