[arstin]

I think this attitude vastly underestimates how messy of a process knowing actually is. To give just one point here: understanding a topic---even a single assertion---isn't like a switch, something you lack one moment and have the next. A researcher who can use knowledge about a topic in a wide variety of contexts (especially beyond their mechanical training) and who can map it into a wide variety of other systems has, for the most part, a better understanding than a researcher who can't. And of a course a layman who can't even work in a single system but has acquired a few "analogical" notions can have more understanding than someone who doesn't even recognize the concept.

Exactly because of how knowing works, I think articles like this can have an important place. They can open up new concepts for us (often little more than an empty node that can later be filled in). For experts in the broader field, they can give a quick impression of what other people are working on which might stimulate digging into more detail. And for experts on this topic, taking such writing seriously can have benefits like keeping their work in perspective and stimulating creativity (see Feynman's point about teaching physics 101).

And yes, these articles satisfy emotional needs. But what good thing doesn't?

Edit: I was mostly responding to the parent->parent, not so much disagreeing with the parent, who raised a good point.

[TuringTest]

That's right. Sometimes part of the fun is having an understanding of what the theory is useful for, and how it could impact science overall in the medium and long term, even if we don't get anything at all about the workings of the theory itself.