Again - I'm exploring what follows if you accept the sequence's argument, and not trying to propose a 'solution' to cluelessness. So I think I'm not bothered by your point.
If by 'overall bad' you're referring to long-term cosmic consequences, then sure - they're called the virtues of cluelessness in part because they are virtues conditional on us being currently clueless (overall I'm exploring what follows if you accept the sequence's argument). If I believed that these virtues systematically led to bad long-term consequences I would have to believe I'm not clueless about those consequences.
If you meant something weaker than that, e.g. near-term overall bad, or just that the virtues typically led to misguided research results - then still probably yes, since those seem like the kinds of things that would be relevant to me assessing them as virtues. (Even a non-consequentialist theory of virtue can accept that consequences are sometimes relevant to assessing virtue.)
Again - I'm exploring what follows if you accept the sequence's argument, and not trying to propose a 'solution' to cluelessness. So I think I'm not bothered by your point.
If by 'overall bad' you're referring to long-term cosmic consequences, then sure - they're called the virtues of cluelessness in part because they are virtues conditional on us being currently clueless (overall I'm exploring what follows if you accept the sequence's argument). If I believed that these virtues systematically led to bad long-term consequences I would have to believe I'm not clueless about those consequences.
If you meant something weaker than that, e.g. near-term overall bad, or just that the virtues typically led to misguided research results - then still probably yes, since those seem like the kinds of things that would be relevant to me assessing them as virtues. (Even a non-consequentialist theory of virtue can accept that consequences are sometimes relevant to assessing virtue.)