Let us know if you would like to see more photos of this artwork!
- Back of the work / Side of the work
- Details / Signature / Artwork's surface or texture
- Artwork in situation, Other...
I see no Dryads Here (2016) Drawing by Edwin Loftus
More info
- Packaging (Box or cardboard packaging) All artworks are shipped with a premium carrier, carefully protected and insured.
- Tracking Order tracking until the parcel is delivered to the buyer. A tracking number will be provided so that you can follow the parcel in real-time.
- Delay Worldwide delivery in 3 to 7 days (Estimate)
More info
- Trackable Online Certificate of Authenticity Authenticity Certificates can be verified online at any moment by scanning the artwork code.
- Artist Value Certification Experts study the work and career of an artist then establish an independent and reliable average price value. The average price value situates the artist on a price range for a given period. The experts may also be asked to establish a more precise estimate for a particular work.
More info
100% secure payment with SSL certificate + 3D Secure.
More info
This image is available for download with a licence
Seller Edwin Loftus
-
Original Artwork (One Of A Kind)
Drawing,
Pastel
on Paper
-
Dimensions
12x10 in
Dimensions of the work alone, without framing: Height 8in, Width 6in - Framing This artwork is framed (Frame + Under Glass)
- Categories Drawings under $1,000 Conceptual Art Fantasy
Do any of you actually believe that it's possible to scientifically "model" climate conditions decades into the future? With no independent reproduction of results, no reproducibility of factors, no isolation of factors, no examination of alternatives, no subjection to critical review, the only science in current climate science is that some of the data used to support it is actually scientifically generated ... but not scientifically applied to the theory.
How many times have you heard, "scientific consensus" or "a consensus of climate scientists agree"? In true science, there is no value in consensus. Consensus is not a part in any way, of true science.
"The science is settled"? True science is never settled because there may always be some factor that has not yet been taken into account that could invalidate the previous findings.
"Peer Review? Peer reviews are precautions taken by publications to help insure that they don't completely embarrass themselves. A peer review has no place in science. it is not an independent researcher verifying the data and reproducing the conditions under which the conclusion was reached. it is easily 'fixed' by hiring sympathetic reviewers, (which in practice, are usually recommended by the article's author). They don not test the data, they look it over and pass on whether it looks scientific or not, not whether it is good science or junk science.
For the same reason, "Probability" has nothing to do with science. Science is about objectively determining reality to the best extent possible. Probability theory is only about determining what is most probably real. They are different disciplines. A 4% deviation from predicted results in science is a death knell, in probability theory it is still within the range of normal expectations.
And speaking of "discipline", that is what science is, a discipline by which more accurate predictions can be made. But for a proposition to be a scientific one, scientific discipline must be observed. Facts cannot be disregarded because they don't support the theory. Alternative theories and explanations and interpretations, likewise cannot be dismissed unless they can be disproven. Tampering with facts, invalidates those facts. Prejudicing factors in the interpretation of facts, invalidates those interpretations. There is no, "But just in case, I'd rather be safe than sorry," in science. Either it is currently indisputable, or it is not. And if it is disputable, it is not a scientific interpretation. Any violation of scientific methodology invalidates the interpretation of the data and renders it, Not Science.
There is science suggesting that the climate is getting warmer. There is no science that suggests that trend can be reversed or more than insignificantly effected by reducing the insignificant human-caused additions of carbon to the atmosphere.
This is not the first time pseudo science has been used to effect social changes:
- In the 19th Century, pseudo physiological science was used to prove the "superiority" of northern Europeans and inferiority of Africans and justify discrimination against the latter and in favor of northern Europeans.
As that began to be discredited, at the beginning of the 20th Century, pseudo genetic science was used to justify discrimination against and the mass murder of Armenians, Jews, Gypsies, the mentally retarded, the physically disabled, Koreans, Africans, American-Asians, (called 'Indians'), and many other supposedly "genetically inferior" people.
When that was discredited, the inheritors of the philosophy that claims that some people are superior and should have the power to rule over everyone else, picked up AGW, (Anthropogenic Global Warming), and Social Justice as their new banners to march toward power under.
If you believe in the religious submission to "science", you should have no problem believing in fairies and nymphs and other spirit influences in our world.
[Comparative Physiology was the science/pseudo science that drove theories of racial superiority-inferiority from about 1840 to 1960. Eugenic pseudo science was a driver from about 1890 to 1945. Malthusianism, the belief that the population will cause calamitous die-back unless we significantly glean out its less productive elements on a continuing basis, mixed with some of these other movements, died back in the 20th Century, but returned in the 1960s as "The Population Bomb/Overpopulation". It returned as Environmentalism, now focusing less on population directly and more on the resources that allow the population to grow without great catastrophe. Decrease resources like, nuclear fission, hydro-electric energy and fossil fuels and the population won't be able to grow ... it'll shrink and this will require a class of superior people able to coordinate internationally to manage the slow catastrophe and the inferior people it's happening to. After trying several approaches to increasing the need for highest level management, they finally invented today's crisis, in the 1980s and fed it with grants to anyone who would generate data that could be construed as supporting it, while suppressing any who spoke against it.
These were all, elitist, "Progressive" movements.]
Related themes
Edwin Loftus is an American painter and draftsman born in 1951. His interest in art began at the age of 4 when he decided to draw something real rather than working from his imagination.
As a child he excelled at drawing and as a teenager he began to experiment with oil painting. In college, he took courses in art and art history and realized that true art had nothing to do with the quality of the drawing or painting, but that it had to have the ambition to push the boundaries and expand the visual experience.
He also studied philosophy, psychology and history and quickly realized that it was just another art establishment trying to defend its elitist industry and reward system. Their skills were almost non-existent, they knew nothing about psychology, perception or stimulus response, and they were extensions of the belief system that made communism, fascism and other forms of totalitarianism such destructive forces in the world. They literally believe that art shouldn't be available to ordinary human beings, but only to an elite "sophisticated" enough to understand it.
Edwin Loftus realized that the emperors of art had no clothes, but they were still the emperors. Gifted in art, he worked hard to acquire this skill. So he found other ways to make a living and sold a few artworks from time to time. For sixty years, many people enjoyed his works and some collected them.
Today, Edwin Loftus is retired. Even if he sold all his paintings for the price he asked, "artist" would be the lowest paid job he ever had... but that's the way it is. It won't matter to him after he dies. He just hopes that some people will like what he does enough to enjoy it in the future.
- Nationality: UNITED STATES
- Date of birth : 1951
- Artistic domains: Works by artists with a certified artist value,
- Groups: Certified Artists Contemporary American Artists