Talk:Unobservable

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Epistemology Mid‑importance

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

Mid

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Epistemology

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Junk[edit]

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)[reply]

Berkeley[edit]

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)[reply]