"Topic" illiteracy is acceptable because people can only know so much. Nobody ever talks about the illiteracy in terms of 'trees are air.' or 'lasers are focuse

"Topic" illiteracy is acceptable because people can only know so much. Nobody ever talks about the illiteracy in terms of 'trees are air.' or 'lasers are focused light' both of which are not common knowledge. Most people think Trees come from the ground and lasers are focused sound. "Scientific Illiteracy" is almost always not about knowledge but rather political policy. Or in his words "scientific facts people may remember." That's why Amy Coney Barrett's vague non-answer is being construed as science illiteracy. While Kamala Harris is being portrayed as the winner. ACB is not giving any answer, she outright says she's keeping her nose out of the political issue. There's no answer whether or not she believes in climate change. >Inappropriate claims like this by politicians who want to be on the right side of science but who can’t be bothered to think about what it implies don’t help. I think this illustrates the problem. This isn't about scientific literacy, it's about politics. This has nothing to do with science.