A response to the epistemic argument against platonism must therefore address the causal inertness of abstract objects, not merely deflect to the permissibility of unexplained foundational commitments.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Causal inertness(the main problem the response must address): The property of being unable to cause anything to happen or affect the physical world in any way.
Foundational commitments(as used in philosophy of mathematics): The basic assumptions and principles that a mathematical or logical system relies on at its core—the 'ground floor' beliefs it's built upon.
Platonism(Ontology of mathematics): The position that abstract mathematical entities exist independently, supported here by the claim that our best scientific theories quantify over such entities.
abstract objects(The target of Platonist ontological claims): Objects referred to by singular terms in literally true sentences that cannot be paraphrased away; includes mathematical objects (e.g., numbers), propositions, properties, relations, sentence types, possible worlds, logical objects, and fictional objects.

Based on where you are in your exploration