I would paraphrase their entire report by saying being skeptic is just as important as being science literate.
Interesting theory though..
Thinking back it explains a lot. I used to always wonder why a retired chemist I knew was so against the idea of man made global warming. The arguments we would have! This kinda explains it..

It’s an interesting article. It makes sense that a person who is genuinely curious about nature, along with the human environment, would be more open- minded than one who was simply knowledgeable about science in a rote way. Of course curiosity should be encouraged if that is possible.

I’m worried a little by the proposed methods for cultivating that curiosity. If the films about science were created in a truly open-minded way by people who have deep awareness and spirituality, then some of that curiosity might catch hold. What I suspect will happen is that nothing will be produced but rote, mechanistic, propaganda reflective of the materialistic mind set that is so common. I really doubt if empirical methods are going to do it.

I think that what should be encouraged is not curiosity about science, but curiosity and awe for nature and for our existence in nature.

The founders of the country thought we should keep weapons in case we have to fight tyranny. What does that have to do with science?

In my local parlance of folksy wisdom, that's called having "just enough brains to be dangerous." The imprudently educated among us are the worst. They gain just enough confidence in knowing the right answers to ignore the issue of whether they're asking the right questions. I heard a mountain man say something unintentionally profound in regard to curing pelts and skins to wear. They do this by muddling chunks of the animal's brains into water and boiling them into a mixture to be painted inside the skins. He said, "Every mammal has just enough brains in its head to tan its own hide." Truer words were never spoken.

Like so often, I don't really like the title, but in this day and age it has to be catchy, right? When looking at Figure 1 another suggestion come to mind: "Smarter republicans are better at ignoring facts"

Interesting article, and something I would not have supposed to be true. But then, am I just identifying with my group?