Learn everything only through reading papers?

I'm asking (wondering) more and more question as the use of question mark in the titles of my recent posts becomes frequent.

I like reading papers for its own sake - just reading. At first I read reviews of unfamiliar fields, and get familiar to them, then pay attention to outstanding papers in these fields. For example I used to skip mesoporous papers but after I went over a review on ACIE I can feel now the excitement of this field. I have also witnessed some fast moving fronts becoming new areas of worldwide interest, e.g. inclusion complex between cyclodextrins and linear polymer, colloidal crystal. Now I am wondering the possibility that I learn more behind these papers about the mechanism or way to kick-start clever, high impact growing fields. At least by comparing what a groups did before and after their clever thought, one may find out some clues about how to deviate an old project into its new life; that is how to 'suddenly' be inspired so much to publish on ACIE or JACS or Chem. Eur. J. Also, by tracking the line of a heated research from its first communication to the latest catch-up, one may gain some tips on how to develop a good idea into sustainable growth of a big area (rather than quenching it by stupid combinations and more combinations).

As the range of reading broadens one may know at the same time many new possibilities emerging very recently, and many even newer ideas based on the latest findings in different areas may keep flashing in one's mind. Very few of them, though, have the potential to be practically developed into valuable research fields, and I suggest the best way to learn the criteria of potential ideas is reading behind and beyond a large number of papers.

Andrew definitely doe not know all these because he, after reading (with me) so many, still choose an older-than-Mars-creature research for graduate thesis. What is unknown about cyclodextrin and PEG-b-PLA in water that need Mr. Andrew to work on it a bit? Recently he has been thinking playing around with 'molecular printboard', self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) of cyclodextrin and the subsequent supramolecular interaction with various guests, with a colleague and his best friend ever who manage an AFM. But everything seems to have been reached by David N. Reinhoudt's group with up till now more than 14 papers published. I still wish him a good luck.

What's your experience of reading paper? Do you think paper reading can mean that much? Or it is just my illusion?