Talk:Eva Jablonka
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Eva Jablonka be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Banalities?
editThe use of the term "banalities" to describe evolutionary psychology and memetics strikes me as quite biased. There are clearly many researchers (some quite distinguished) who do not view these topics as "banal" at all, and still others who hold epigenetics in similar contempt. If this language is Jablonka's own, it really ought to be cited. If it isn't, a more value-neutral word like "approaches" might be better. 99.182.80.19 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
One vote agreeing with the above comment. Ferren (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Evolutionary psychology is worse than banal, it is religion. There is no way a sum of hardwired mechanisms could possibly invent or use the scientific method. Eva Jablonka's epigenetic theory provides a feasible model for the non-fixedness that the existence of the scientific method requires WITHOUT invoking any kind of "scientific ghost in the unscientific machine" (Jablonka's model allows the machine itself to do science, which evolutionary psychology and/or Chomskyanism does not).109.58.179.182 (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg
I also felt uncomfortable with the term. Safer to delete it. Valleyofdawn (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Rationale for links to major research areas
edit@Natureium: I'm a little surprised to have links to Jablonka's major research subject areas removed. Readers of a biographical article cannot be assumed to be au fait with everything, and may well be reading the article to get a rough idea of the subject's interests and background. If that's agreed, then links to such interests are highly relevant, even if to biologists they are "obvious". The fact is that obviousness is a moving target. Links are cheap and unobtrusive to informed readers, helpful to the rest. I think we should reinstate them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I assume this was a good-faith revert made quickly on patrol, so I'm putting it back now. Hope that's ok. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- First, you broke the formatting of a word that was italicized, second, things like "culture" don't need to be linked and are the definition of excessive linking. Natureium (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- I assume this was a good-faith revert made quickly on patrol, so I'm putting it back now. Hope that's ok. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)