Unscientific ideas can inspire useful and possibly prescient thoughts. To me that was the real subtext of this article.

The people you're quoting clearly read at least part of the article (they quoted or paraphrased it). I think it's fair to assume they thought anyone reading their comments would read them in the context of the article. The article itself is very critical of Jaynes' ideas and almost all the quoted professionals say "yes that's very interesting, but he has no proof and most of it is flat out wrong."

Anyway that's my long way of saying most articles aren't worth reading but this one is.