New York Times Searches Far and Wide for the Most Qualified Experts

Space on the prestigious NY Times opinion pages is extremely limited.  And most of that space is routinely taken up by the paper’s own editorials and columnists.

So one imagines that on the rare occasions when the Times ventures to outside sources from among the constant inundation of submissions it normally receives, it chooses its pieces carefully — to represent a particular point of view or perspective, with careful, reasoned and logical support.

Thus, in its search far and wide for someone to provide  a provocative, informative, non misleading and relevant opinion piece on the timely and global issue of climate change recently, the Times apparently scoured the entire globe itself, finally settling upon an expert from New Zealand. A professor of philosophy named Denis Dutton.

Just below is how Dutton’s fantastic work of reason, logic, and coherency might have made its way onto the famed and highly selective pages of the NY Times.

Note that the following conversation is merely a simulation (one supposes) of a conversation that could have occurred, illustrating both the value of Dutton’s piece, as well as how it might have ended up on the highly influential and venerable NY times opinion pages:

DUTTON: I think some may be overreacting on climate change here.

So far, notice, this is a short, one sentence, unsupported suggestion, not an oped.  So how does it turn into one?

NY TIMES:   Why may some be overreacting?

DUTTON: because sometimes people overreact.

NY TIMES:  We know sometimes people over react to things.  That’s like saying that we are under-reacting to climate change because “sometimes we under react.” What’s your reason why some are overreacting on this issue?

DUTTON: because people tend to find apocalypses intriguing!!

NY TIMES:  That’s not an argument for saying climate catastrophe is overreaction, catastrophes do happen; that’s an argument for saying the world is literally coming to an end due to climate changer alone – an argument that maybe all of four people are making – and three for intended hyperbole.

When sometimes we under react to things, and other times we over react to things, saying that we are “overeacting” to climage change by giving a reason why sometimes people over react to things, which otherwise has not specific applicability to this particular instance, is tautological,and logically nonsensical.

It is like saying “I think my neigbor’s wife is having an affair;” we ask why, you say “because sometimes wives have affairs,” we ask why her, and you give a  reason why sometimes wives in general have affairs, such as “because they are lonely or bored.” You have done nothing to support why you think your neigbor’s wife is having an affair;  and you have done nothing to support why our response to climate change is an over reaction rather than an under reaction.

So do you have anything else more than “we overreact sometimes,” we under react other times, this time we are over reacting, based upon the reasoning that “we overreact sometimes”?

DUTTON: Yes, yes, of course I do.  Here goes. Here is my reason.  Drumroll please: “It seems to me.”

NY TIMES: Hey, that’s pretty good. In other words, you are not just arguing “sometimes we over react to stuff, sometimes we under react to stuff, on climate change we are over reacting, the end,” you are saying that, but with “it seems to me” thrown in.  As they say on the Guinness commercials, “brilliant!”

But do  you have anything else?  That, would make it even better.

DUTTON: Yup.  I sure do. I have even more. Since this is a scientific issue, why should we bother with any actual science, when instead we can botger with stuff that is even better than science; namely, science fiction.   Ready?  Mary Shelley Created Frankenstein.

Thus, you see, people are fascinated with this stuff, like Frankenstein, so we are over reacting on climate change!  And no one will ever pick up that we also tend to overlook other stuff, like actual science, or scenarios where there is a big lag between cause and effect, so we are underestimating climate change.  Instead, here, we are over reacting, because of Frankenstein, and fascination with Frankenstein!

NY TIMES:  Absolutely brilliant.  This is great stuff. No one will eve see what a hoax this logic is (including us!).

But allthough we know it says so much more, it might appear as if your argument says nothing more than “We are over reacting, not under reacting, this time, because because Mary Shelley created Frankenstein.”

Brilliant and relevant as that argument is, can you fill this piece with an otherwise also completely irrelevant yet excruciatingly detailed example of a time when we over-reacted as opposed to under-reacted, overlooking how that also illustrates exactly nothing — yet allowing you to essentially, and wonderfully, wasted your entire piece on it!

Since we already know we sometimes over react, just like we know we sometimes under react, giving us an example of a time we overreacted tells us nothing.  But it will come across to readers as if it does! Particularly if you spend almost your entire piece on it.  And that is what we want to do here at the NY Times. Print logically nonsensical pieces of garbage that might masquerade as something of worth.

So, can you not only give us an example of an otherwise unrelated time that we over reacted, but spend most of your at this point otherwise two sentence piece on it?

DUTTON: Sure, absolutely. Like what?  Like, maybe, talk about how many people and countries way over reacted to Y2K?

(Editor of ELA, not of the NY Times here. Ahem, Dutton, “ahem.”  Not many people but those of us that did; since the editor of this website  thought the entire notion of an unavoidable enormous Y2k breakdown just because the years on many computers were in double rather than quadruple digits, was ridiculous, and said so repeatedly.)

NY TIMES:  Exactly.

DUTTON: Done. Check  your in box.

Hard to believe, right?

NY TIMES: If you don’t believe this speculated mockusation, come read our pages, December 31, and see for yourself.

Simply saying “We overreact to some things, perhaps we are to climate change, here are some reasons why we are over-reacting here,” flawed as the conclusion that we are overreacting likely is, is fine. Dutton does not come close to doing that, however.  He suggests that sometimes we over react to things; he explains why he thinks we over-react to things sometimes (fascination with the eschatological), and then suggests that “we are over-reacting here” for no reason other than the completely tautological explanation that sometimes we do, along with the completely irrelevant reason why we sometimes do.

If anything, there would be far more driving the idea that we are under-reacting here.  Likely results are many years in the future.  The implications to many, of this, are extremely negative, because of the (flawed) perception that sensibly addressing this means we have to sacrifice our economy. There is a general lack of general scientific understanding among the populace. And our expectations are grounded in what we have come to expect, and the difficulty we seem to have grasping the ideas that 1) there is an enormous time lag here between both cause and effect, and 2) effects are very likely to be non linear (that is, potentially accelerating with increased input).

Whether that last paragraph, was a good or bad (but short) opinion piece for the Times, at least it offered reasons. Dutton offers none. What he offered is like suggesting “remember how in medieval times the plague hit, and people did not take it seriously enough;” then spending most of the time writing about how bad the plague was and how wrong everybody was; then offering up a bunch of reasons why in general people often don’t take things seriously enough (and they tend to number far greater than “fascination with eschatology”) and then concluding “it seems to me climate change is the same. The end.”  That would be a truly inane piece.  And, analogously, it is exactly the logic — and all of it — that the NY Times chose to publish.