That is absolutely the case. If something is "ineffable", it's probably logically ill-defined, and we should treat anyone who tries to use something "ineffable" in formal argument as a mystic spouting hogwash.
This seems like a valid argument to me. Could one of the downvoters perhaps care to point out the errors in it. Or is it just because of the word 'hogwash'?
I'm very concerned at the number of people on HN who seem to have bought into this religious mysticism disguised as math. That's one of the oldest tricks in the book.
But logic is subjective and reason is impotent. What is the purpose of philosophy other than to protect us from acquiring knowledge about reality? We'd be defenseless without faith and mysticism.
This present experience is ineffable. Is this present experience hogwash?