I agree with you that reading trade journals is beyond ridiculous for the average person. I find it frustrating that so many adults have willfully forgotten pretty much all the science they were supposed to learn in highschool. I really feel that of you stopped a person on the street and asked them to give a brief overview of the scientific method and what it's important most people wouldn't be able to answer and may very well argue that it's not important. So I think my argument is opposite of caeli's. I think there's an over emphasis on teaching science facts and calling that literacy, while there's no real effort to give a solid foundation on how and why science is done. The atomic weight of carbon is useless for most people, but the critical thinking skills that scientists use can be put to use just about anywhere.
You're doing a good job of proving my point... when we get down to it, your frustration isn't so much about literacy as it is about rigor. These are people who, by your reckoning, had a basic literacy but are choosing to disregard it. In other words, it's not their lack of basis that bugs you, it's their adherence to dogma. I'd argue that insisting on reading this paper or that enforces dogma without enforcing the ability to evaluate the underlying subjects of discussion. On the other hand, striving for a basis of not just understanding but the methods of understanding automatically raises the level of discourse. I agree- the atomic weight of carbon is useless for most people. But the ability to judge the veracity of a statement on the revision of the atomic weight of carbon is priceless.