It takes antiscience to previously unexplored terrain

NewAmerica

Senior Member
Mandarin
Does it mean "it leads antiscience to a new area"?

Even so, I still feel frustrated by failing to get a clear picture there. Something nuance seems to have escaped me.

Thanks in advance
****************************
The current presidential race, however, is something special. It takes antiscience to previously unexplored terrain. When the major Republican candidate for president has tweeted that global warming is a Chinese plot, threatens to dismantle a climate agreement 20 years in the making and to eliminate an agency that enforces clean air and water regulations, and speaks passionately about a link between vaccines and autism that was utterly discredited years ago, we can only hope that there is nowhere to go but up.

-Scientific American

Source
 
  • PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    "it leads antiscience to a new, and previously unheard of, area". It is a form of anti-science which is using arguments that nobody has ever heard before/has ever made before."
     

    bennymix

    Senior Member
    People were 'antiscience' in certain areas-- let's say evolution. But new areas are now becoming issues, eg. re vaccines. It's a--perhaps tongue in cheek-- metaphor such as that of an explorer going into 'unexplored terrain'.

    Note there is an element of irony or mockery. Usually one says, "knowledge embraces new areas" referring say, to black holes. The author is really saying "purposeful ignorance is expanding to new areas (previously known!)".
     

    NewAmerica

    Senior Member
    Mandarin
    The author is really saying "purposeful ignorance is expanding to new areas (previously known!)".
    Does "purposeful ignorance" refer to "pretending to be a fool (in some areas) in order to maximize one's interest/to get an advantage for personal purpose"?
     

    MattiasNYC

    Senior Member
    Swedish
    If I may add, I'd say that we should be careful to distinguish between on the one hand the candidate the writer talks about, and "antiscience" in general. I think it's not entirely wrong to guess that perhaps on the part of the politician there is indeed the goal of gaining an advantage (winning an election). On the other hand, a lot of people that are "antiscience" are definitely simply dismissing evidence that prove their views wrong, and accept "evidence" that support their views.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top