Talk:Unobservable

The writing here is really very poor. Could someone revise? Poor prose will not be mistaken for profunditity (philosophical or otherwise)!

Propose merge into Object of the mind

This article could be merged into Object of the mind. 03:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuluPapa5 (talk • contribs)

Going to move forward with merger. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, please don't. At least not in the current state. In philosophy of science typical examples of "unobservables" are atomic particles, the force of gravity, does not fit within "Object of the mind" William M. Connolley (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It would seem more natural to propose to merge Abstract object with OotM William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe ... I am indifferent, wonder if anyone has bothered to better classify these strange things like Categories_(Peirce) has. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC) and Classification_of_the_sciences_(Peirce) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Junk

This page has no sources. Its In philosophy of science typical examples of "unobservables" are atomic particles, the force of gravity, causation and beliefs or desires[citation needed] conflates real object - atomic particles - with states of mind. It should probably be rewritten/blanked/redirected/disambig'd. Anything but left in its present state William M. Connolley (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Berkeley

I removed the sentence on Berkeley since it seems to me that it is based on a misunderstand of Berkeley. He didn't hold that things like trees or tables are unobservable but that there are no unobservable things (except perhaps for other minds): "esse est percipi".Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)