  The pluralist will certainly accept the above results—after all, they are mathematical theorems—but will resist the claim that they provide us with theoretical reasons for adopting ADL(ℝ). The pluralist may grant that the results are quite interesting and that they show that ADL(ℝ) has a certain appeal—since, for example, it renders L(ℝ) a paradise for analysts—but they will view this as a practical reason for adopting ADL(ℝ), not a theoretical reason. On this view there are many roads that one can take—V = L, ADL(ℝ), etc.—and that while each has its advantages with respect to certain aims there is no “fact of the matter” as to which is the correct one, any more than there is a “fact of the matter” as to which of two notations is the correct notation. At this level, according to the pluralist, no theoretical reasons are at play and there is no issue of objective mathematical truth. This is the view of Feferman (1999), Kanamori (2003), Shelah (2003), and many other philosophers and mathematicians. 