Is that why you attacked the author, right off the bat? Or even me (although obliquely) in your comment #12?
As I stated, this author gives about as clear-cut of an example of why some should conduct public policy over others as can be . . . and you come to discuss semantics. Not understanding that the implication of your argument is that the woman is as qualified to eradicate dengue fever as anyone else. So yeah, that's ignorant.
My point was rhetorical; I thought the context made it abundantly clear. My point was that the author (or anyone) can be judged “ignorant” by some standard. He should remember that he’s living in a glass house.
Really, unless he’s building castles in the sky, I’m sure what his point is. That people should make a point of learning about a subject before they express an opinion about it? That seems hardly novel, and even that idea calls for qualification. That we should try to pick knowledgeable people as our “experts”? That borders on tautology. That only the “informed” should be making public policy? He suggests that at the end, rather explicitly. That seems insidious.