meaningful or meaningless

In searching for the to-be-criticized paper, one question keeps coming into my mind: are those seemingly-silly or seemingly-common sense hypotheses really meaningless, or just because I don't know what's deeper behind the hypothese. It makes me hard to find a journal paper to criticize it's RQ and hypothese. (Of course it's eaiser to pick up the insufficency and weakness of each paper, but it's hard to say this hypothesis is totally meaningless or not make sense, especially those selected in the well-known journals.) I'm thinking maybe the RQs I think are not interesting or boring is because that's not my interest or I haven't read enough to know the meaning behind. Like what I've learnt in the political sophistication class at Government department, many readings focus on some tiny changes or adjustments of measurements and questions they ask. Sometimes I'll think, do we need to be so care about all those tiny things, but from their long-term studies, even one word matters, and their studies in method/measurement develpment sometimes more mature than other field. Is it because it's meaningless, or we just don't have enough knowledge to catch its real meaning? In addition, sometimes, someone's trash might be others' treasure, how to know the distinction of lack of meaning or precious treasure in certain field before we're really familiar with that field?