Talk:Reversal test

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Andrewa in topic Lede section

Unclear definition edit

valid criticisms of proposed increase in some human trait

Should this read

valid criticisms of proposed increase in prevalence of some human trait

?

I don't understand currently.

Removed deletion proposal edit

The reversal test is a supposedly important invention of a very prominent philosopher at Oxford University. The article needs to be improved, not deleted. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not every neologism invented by a philosopher is noteworthy. Is Bostrom "very prominent" in philosophy itself, or in getting himself into the papers (which he's good at)? This is part of a WP:WG of Bostrom-related fragments - he has a number of enthusiastic fans, but not a lot of outside notability. If it's not a "neologism with no third-party WP:RS evidence of currency", I urge you to produce these third-party WP:RSes showing currency of the term - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
The reversal test paper currently has 133 citations according to Google Scholar, which is pretty good for a merely 9-year old philosophy paper. The citing papers and books are not just from the close academic fanclub, but all over bioethics. Anders Sandberg (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Could be good. What are average citation rates in philosophy? (I can easily find numbers for hard sciences and social sciences, but not philosophy.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lede section edit

I've moved the shortintro template because as it was, the lede was getting lost completely!

Which I guess made the point... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply