My plan makes sense, given if it were possible to send information backwards in time in a way that was accessible to the human consciousness, then erasing scientific and social ignorance from history, and just have everybody ever have the knowledge of say, your average college level science and psychology textbooks, think of all the advancements that could come of that!
Holy run on sentences Batman! But this plan doesn't make sense because it relies on absolute statements that don't make any sense. In what sense would importing our scientific and social attitudes erase any ignorance at all? Take a 2000ml bucket with 100ml of water in it. You're proposing to add, at best, another 20ml of water to it, but you're speaking like it'd fill it completely.
But would it be ethical?
Absolutely not. It'd be a form of mind control designed to control people's attitudes. It would literally alter who these people were fundamentally, and would probably cause a high degree of cognitive dissonance and mental illness. We can't be sure because it's entirely impossible to actually do, so it's not something that would be comparable to anything in the real world, but I believe it would be directly harmful to those people regardless of the righteousness of the intention.
Should people be left ignorant?
Leaving aside the point that the proposal wouldn't do anything to remove ignorance, yes they should. Every experience in indoctrination and control of thought has pointed out that you cannot force people to think something they know is untrue, even where that knowledge is ultimately untrue. The only way to make people think like you is to convince them to, which relies on persuasive arguments and consent. Without that consent there's no point because they'd probably backslide as soon as they could.
Do people have a right to ignorance?
Insofar as rights are political assertions by governments as to what they will and will not do for their citizens, no people don't have a right to ignorance, any more than they have a right to knowledge. Describing it as a right suggests that ultimately, it's someone else's job to make sure these people know things, and I don't know how it's possible to ensure anything like that in any case. As an aside, that doesn't mean governments can't guarantee a right to
education but that's not the same as a right to knowledge.