I like this post and think you make an interesting point with good quality writing. To me, the central argument you were making was quite clear, and I thought the tone of the piece made it more memorable and compelling, like some of the essays from the sequences rather than "modern day" Less Wrong. I can't help but think other criticisms are being a little too meta-contrary. As far as I'm concerned, if more people with this quality of writing wrote on Less Wrong instead of their personal [tum]blogs, the site would be a better place. So take this as encouragement.

With respect to the core argument, that you can average out a bad thesis with rigorous additions, I am a little bit skeptical as Kaj_Sotala is. Would love to hear further examples of times this has occurred. It seems plausible though.