Yeah, we differ about what "respectable" means, but in that case, your beef is with the original top comment. It argued "Dismissing ... a ... respectable philos

Yeah, we differ about what "respectable" means, but in that case, your beef is with the original top comment. It argued "Dismissing ... a ... respectable philosophical theory like panpsychism ... gives the impression of arrogant scientism". If respectable means nothing more than a bunch of academics write papers about it, that argument is moot. Since Sokal, it must be clear to everybody that that kind of respectability isn't enough for a theory to be discussed as meritorious. Hence, you can't defend a theory by calling it respectable in that sense. Somehow, that seems to be more damning than what I called it.