I completely agree, and would only point out that the ability to get far on properly calibrated bullshit is a well established phenomenon throughout human history.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

I love when I run into this, because I actually took two classes taught by Dr Peter Boghossian, the first was Critical Thinking, the second was Atheism. Checking Portland State's course catalog, he's still teaching those classes.

Oh, and as you might imagine, there was a pretty considerable amount of material that existed in both of those classes.

But then the onus is on those who sense it to point out said bullshit.

See above. TFA claims that IIT is testable, but does not say anthing at all about a test that has been published, a test that has been done, a test that some research group is doing, a test that is being considered, a test that could be done given some scientific or technological development. Nothing.

Burden of proof generally isn't on the skeptic.

I think there is a difference between a proof and the refutation of an argument. I expect proofs from scientific theories, and if a theory of consciousness would posit itself as scientific, I would be in perfect agreement with you that proofs or testable predictions should be provided. But I think here we are well into philosophy grounds, where neither proofs nor predictions are required. If that is the case, a philosophical claim needs to be actively rejected. I will admit that I still have to make my mind whether IIT is purely philosophy, purely scientific, or neither. Currently I don't think it's a theory of consciousness, rather just a model to "quantify" consciousness, without explaining its origin.

The author of TFA disagrees with you: "Most importantly, though, IIT is a scientific theory, unlike panpsychism."

I mean, I just eat lunch while I read things, not sure why you think I've signed up to put a professional level effort into rolling my eyes at these guys.