Talk:Reversal test

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Alternative views

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Transhumanism Low‑importance

Reversal test' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help click Show:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.

Quick help:

See changes to:

To Do List:

edit - history - watch - purge

Join WikiProject transhumanism and be bold

Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt an article.
Help out with the To-do lists

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for transhumanism related articles (see: The perfect article, and Featured articles)
Add Transhumanism navigation template on the bottom of all transhumanism articles; (use {{Transhumanism}} or see navigation template)
Add Transhumanism info box to all transhumanism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box)
Add [[Category:transhumanism]] to the bottom of all transhumanism related articles, so it shows up on the list of transhumanism articles

Maintenance / Etc

Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources.
Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process)
Watch the list of transhumanism related articles and add to accordingly (see transhumanism articles)
And always write for an encyclopedia.

Create

Notable transhumanist articles

Shorten / merge into others

Expand

a transhumanism stub

Your immediate attention

false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Transhumanism, using footnotes.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Unclear definition

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

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

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]

Contested edits (July 2024)

I invite Grayfell to explain why an edit of theirs that seems to directly contradict their last one may not be reverted. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, this article doesn't directly discuss eugenics, so trancluding it at New eugenics is editorializing.

If the similar thought experiments placed in a footnote are defined by reliable sources as being similar, use sources to establish and explain that. Otherwise, these don't belong at all, and including them based on an editor's personal understanding is a form of WP:OR. It is not up to editors to find examples, it is up to sources.

The quotes are too long and the article is over-reliant on a single primary source. To avoid cherry-picking, cite reliable WP:IS.

For this paragraph: Alfred Nordmann argues that the reversal test merely erects a straw-man argument in favour of enhancement. He claims that the tests are limited to approaches that are consequentialist and deontological. He adds that one cannot view humans as sets of parameters that can be optimized separately or without regard to their history.[1] The source barely mentions the reversal test at all.

I'll trust that the last paragraph is fairly summarized, but that means the article barely meets WP:GNG. Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reversion was to preserve the status quo pending further discussion, per WP:QUO. Grayfell (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]