Ah. I now see this comment too. I think I understand your other statement about "scientifically supported" better. I have also read the book, and I feel it make

Ah. I now see this comment too. I think I understand your other statement about "scientifically supported" better. I have also read the book, and I feel it makes a lot of sense. Like I said in my other post: most discourse only acknowledges nominalism or platonism. Neither sat well with me. Now following Hume and Locke "induction" is often treated as something "invalid", a problem to be solved. If induction is however is not a problem (see for example, Groarke, 2009, An Aristotelian Account of Induction). Aristotelian approaches are reasonable. Hence, numbers and other mathematical concepts can be very real.