[leelover]

After all that, I still want to know how anyone personally evaluates what they judge to be , and what they would commit to even if it wasn't especially "profitable" in the common sense.

[analogbear]

I think it us generally accepted that each person evaluates things in their life in their own way, based on their genetic predispositions, contextual-psychology, parental/role-model influence, popular-culture, personal experiences, and some ability to reason. I think too, that the greater the exposure to different theories, formulae, research, etc, the greater the ability to reason...So, looking at the evaluation equation, each person will have a different distribution of focus using each evaluative influence(some never escape biology, some are absolute logicians, some are religious fundamentalists or momma's boys, etc); and those with greater intelligence (that is, greater accumulation of knowledge and facts) can reason more effectively than those with less; and so different people can reach different conclusions based upon what they know, even if they are equally "smart" (the ability to engage in the act of analysis, reason, and spotting relationships).


Currently, the scientific community is viewed as "Secular Humanism," and is often derided by many as having the same fundamental problems as religion, because all of it rests on certain assumptions...

So, perhaps the commitment to secular humanism is just as irrational as the commitment to any particular religion? I don't know...The nice thing about science is that scientists are generally accepting of new theories, when supported by evidence; whereas religious folks tend to call new religions heresies, or invent new ones entirely to explain new intellectual/scientific discoveries that refute the earlier belief (chariots pulling celestial bodies around, etc...A cool metaphor, but there ain't no horses in space..."So here comes Monotheism!").