It sounds to me like you reject the premise that an intelligent reader who reads studies like this will have their beliefs diverge from the truth over time. I r

It sounds to me like you reject the premise that an intelligent reader who reads studies like this will have their beliefs diverge from the truth over time. I read your comment as saying, "Sure you shouldn't be convinced by a single study. But if you read enough of these, you'll converge towards the truth". I used to believe that, but I don't now. Let's say some study is an increment of evidence about some hypothesis H. We start off with a prior on H, and we want to know how to update it after reading about a study. What I've taken away from the replication crisis is that my average update was an order of magnitude too large. The appropriate evidentiary weighting of a study in social psychology is so small that I can't usefully consider it as any evidence at all. I'm better off ignoring it. A little example for you. Let's say you read some study about the act of physically smiling causing a positive change of mood, due to a feedback effect. Before reading this study, you would've given this claim p=0.1. Possible, and you can make sense of the explanation, but no particular reason to believe it. After the study, you give it p=0.4. By no means settled, and you don't even necessarily believe it. But you're giving it much more credibility than before. Later it turns out that the study was actually on very few people and was p-hacked. It therefore fails to replicate. The appropriate post-reading belief level turns out to be around p=0.101. You were tricked. If you repeat this pattern, you end up carrying around a bunch of surprising beliefs that have a quite random relationship to the truth. Some of the studies will be correct, but on average you'll be more wrong. Reading these articles might be "interesting", on an entertainment-based definition, but they're the opposite of information. If you read enough of these, you'll make yourself superstitious.