  We consider a philosophical question that is implicit in Selmer Bringsjord's
paper, "The narrational case against Church's Thesis": If, as Mendelson argues,
the classically accepted definitions of foundational concepts such as "partial
recursive function", "function", "(Tarskian) truth", "set" etc. are vague and
imprecise - hence possibly non-constructive and intuitionistically
objectionable - then replacing one non-constructive concept by another may be
psychologically unappealing, but it should be meta-mathematically valid and
acceptable.
