those who advocate one view or another in an intellectual controversy."
First of all, there is, at least in my mind, a world of difference between being stupid and being ignorant. I'm not happy about the way he is lumping them together, which then allows him to say I am calling people stupid, which I definitely am not doing.
Of course I didn't use the word ignorant either. I wrote about Harper's work being perhaps convincing to people who "know nothing about the subjects Harper covers". (I'm not calling Harper ignorant either
What in the world is wrong with people not knowing about a subject? (Ok, ignorant means the same thing, but it's much more emotive -- easier to use that word to bash people). There are many more subjects about which I know nothing then there are about which I know something.
Doug, who is ignorant about many things -- but not the subjects in Harper's book. And who has already posted comments about a number of 'orthodox positions' that Harper has described which would be unrecognisable to people in those fields, which I call strawmen in my post above. I don't plan to repeat myself over and over again.