The world was different when those languages were designed; type theory was not as mature as it is today. IMO if you're designing a new language today and not giving it a real type system, yes, that's intellectually lazy.

As for using them... eh. My subjective view is that scala is much better than all those languages, outside certain small domains. But that's not exactly objective fact. I will say that if you don't know scala then you're being intellectually lazy - even compared to ocaml, it's different enough to be worth knowing, and it's a language you'll learn something from, whether you ultimately find yourself using it or not.

All one has to do to avoid intellectual laziness as a programmer, is to have enough curiosity to constantly re-establish how much one doesn't know. The surprising part is that it might take 10 years to approach an accurate answer.

Also, as you probably know, it's possible to program static typed projects in a Lisp.

Yes, and this is a feature not a bug. As Larry Wall observed, three cardinal virtues of a good programmer are laziness, impatience and hubris. Laziness is important because I have more things on my to-do list than hours in my lifespan, and more things I need to know than neurons in my brain. I didn't choose Python only or even primarily because it's dynamically typed, but nonetheless, every thought I don't have to think about static types is a thought I can instead think about something I actually care about.