Put another way, just because Cosmo publishes an article doesn't mean it's true - but Cosmo does also publish true articles.

Plenty of studies are great and move our understanding forward. More studies answer a very narrow - but important - question. Some studies are just inconclusive, but have value too.

You should read studies. You should evaluate the quality of studies as part of integrating them and their conclusions. At the same time just because something was "a study" or got published doesn't make it true or good or useful, anymore than being written in blue ink makes something truthful.

The value of science is that it does not require faith.

If someone were advocating making policy decisions based on astrological charts, I would read and comment in such threads despite not trusting astrology on a fundamental level.

I personally would go quite as far as to say that purely observational studies have as much predictive value as astrology, but "observational studies are as reliable as astrology" is a better first-order approximation of my opinions than "observational studies are as reliable as large-n randomized controlled trials".