In article ,
wrote:
As a scientist I read abstract when they are outside my immediate research area.


Fine. However, don't pretend you know what the article actually says.

More important, it is bad practice to cite an article you haven't
read as evidence it says what it does not say.


You can read it, but unless you are doing research in the area the
specifics are going to be meaningless. It is impossible to assess if their
procedures are normal practice in that field.


Well, no. If you are knowledgeable about the area it will not be
meaningless. You don't have to be doing research in the field,
you merely have to know what the procedures are.

Moreover, it is important to read the article if you are going
to be *using* that article in any kind of scientific discussion.

"As a scientist" I consider it lazy and profoundly poor practice to
cite articles I have not bothered to read.

This is particularly true in a scientific discussion where one
is citing articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless.

But, OK. I'll be happy to agree that you all are citing articles
in areas of which you are profoundly ignorant, you don't know what
the articles actually mean, and that you are not competent to
understand the articles had you actually bothered to read them.

If that's the claim you want to make, run with it. Otherwise,
read the articles and don't pretend they say what they don't
say.


billo