I completely agree: there are lots of people who claim that they are just in favor of intellectual inquiry. But they won't look at evidence, the don't cite their sources, they give one fallacious argument after another, and when presented with overwhelming evidence they do literally anything but change their mind (change the subject, call it "your opinion", block the other party if it's online, etc. etc.). (This is not the exclusive purview of the Right. But you sure don't have to try hard to find it there.)

However.

There is a terrible danger to this, which is to wrongly assume that because some of the opponents falsely claim to be interested in intellectual inquiry, that therefore all intellectual skepticism of a position is dishonest.

The danger manifests in two ways. First, there are a lot of centrists who are not clued in to the "it's just inquiry" tactics of the resolutely anti-justice. The optics of always seeing "go away, you racist moron" to what looks like innocent inquiry is really bad. Superficially, it looks like you don't have an argument so all you can do when challenged is hurl insults or block-and-ignore. It's much better to take the extra time and explain for the 1958624th time that yes, there is systemic racism, and here is a paper that demonstrates it convincingly. (With like a dozen more available immediately upon request, and more yet with some digging.)

Secondly, there are a vast myriad of ways that we might try to achieve greater justice, many of which are incompatible with each other. If there is a culture of "shut-up-go-away-Right-wing-moron" as the reply to challenge, it will be very difficult to evaluate and contrast different options. Instead, whatever option is on the table and seems sufficiently hated by the Right will be the winner, as anyone challenging that is clearly a racist. Except being hated by the Right isn't a reliable signal.

I agree that you shouldn't invite a flat earther to a geology department seminar (except, I guess, for humor value). But we aren't born knowing that the world is round. We're taught. Extensively. We have globes and pictures of the Earth from space and we explain how the Earth goes around the sun and the tilt of the Earth explains the seasons and so on and so on. Normally we teach kids because this stuff isn't that hard and kids can handle it, but it works fine on adults who actually haven't been exposed to the concepts.

Every non-obvious truth needs the same commitment to education if it's going to sink in. And when you're prepared to teach, it doesn't matter that the inquiry is disingenuous. It's an opportunity to teach anyone who is looking who hasn't learned yet.

(Aside--that The Bell Curve has flawed methodology does not mean that it is necessarily wrong. All that shows is that their argument is even weaker than they thought it was (they did include a lot of caveats). Instead, the relevant point is that people have used better methodology and found that, contrary to the suggestion in The Bell Curve, to the best of our ability to detect, there is either no difference in average IQ of different racial groups, or if there is it's very small compared to natural variation (unlikely to be larger than a couple of points of IQ). There's no point citing criticisms of The Bell Curve. People can go find that if they care to know why what seemed to them like a good argument actually didn't pan out. Just cite the better research.)