I think the point of their comment is that they had exposure to Science, which is almost as important as being a good scientist, because it alters how you think.

I disagree that plain "exposure" is worth anything. Let me bring up a sort of unrelated example. Whenever I meet someone that claims they have "some" experience with people with disabilities, it turns out they are worse then those people that dont claim that.

"Some experience with people with disabilities" implies a far lower level of commitment and immersion than the "exposure to science" that's being discussed in this thread.

If a politician claims they have a scientific background, but it turns out all they did was take gen bio in first year and follow a dozen popular scientists on Twitter, they'd be derided.

I don't know the specifics of the people in the article, but examples like Cédric Villani demonstrate that it's not OK to be rash in one's judgment.