Yeah, I tend to lean towards the side of realism (and constructivism), explicitly for the reasons exemplified by your rock / bottle analogy downthread. But eve

Yeah, I tend to lean towards the side of realism (and constructivism), explicitly for the reasons exemplified by your rock / bottle analogy downthread. But even from that perspective, I found the article's discussion of "true" / "false" rather weird, since it seemed to be taking certain positions (namely regarding the continuum hypothesis) for granted even though those positions don't seem to be grounded in any material fact. It's as if people are conjuring up imaginary fictional entities and then asserting certain attributes about those entities as obvious and objective.