it means that the public's understanding of astrology's pseudoscientific status is so limited that not knowing that status isn't a fair measure of scientific literacy.
It's also evidence that the NSF questions aren't a fair measure of scientific literacy. Pretty strong evidence IMHO.
> It's also evidence that the NSF questions aren't a fair measure of scientific literacy.
Yes, unless knowing which fields are -- and are not -- scientific has been accepted as a criterion for scientific literacy. That's what's confusing about this paper -- it doesn't clearly state what the criteria are for literacy, then it argues that not knowing the standing of astrology probably isn't a useful metric.
It's also evidence that the NSF questions aren't a fair measure of scientific literacy. Pretty strong evidence IMHO.