Maybe I was wrong but here are the reasons for the condemnation
1. propagating falsehoods, or flaws in published work without correcting or refuting their validity, claims etc. by your strong admission that everyone knows of such work (which is subsequently used and cited) yet "completely wrong" there must be so much crap getting published. but there is disinclination to do anything about it
2. witholding of information necessary for reproducing results of experiments as a means of discouraging co-operation with peers you view as rivals or adversaries.
The second is really serious because it effectively subverts the scientific method, undermining scientific consensus and progress. That these are "norms in the field" means nothing save for everybody's indifference and lack of cooperation.
1. propagating falsehoods, or flaws in published work without correcting or refuting their validity, claims etc. by your strong admission that everyone knows of such work (which is subsequently used and cited) yet "completely wrong" there must be so much crap getting published. but there is disinclination to do anything about it
2. witholding of information necessary for reproducing results of experiments as a means of discouraging co-operation with peers you view as rivals or adversaries.
The second is really serious because it effectively subverts the scientific method, undermining scientific consensus and progress. That these are "norms in the field" means nothing save for everybody's indifference and lack of cooperation.
Is the above correct?