[yk]

Well, "naive" is a term of the trade. So "holes" are a potential problem for nominalists, philosophers who want to claim that only specific objects - that chair - exist. Calling a position that is not influenced by the last three thousand years of meta-physics 'naive' seems to be entirely justified, just as there are naive accounts of physics and computer science.

[hoopd]

How exactly is naive a term of the trade in philosophy? You, and the article in question, seem to be using it in a way that any grade-schooler would recognize.

I'm not aware of any "naive accounts" of physics or computer science. You might be thinking of "naive algorithms" and "naive approaches" but in those cases the word has a specific meaning which doesn't fit in the context of the above quote.

[yk]

'naive' means unsophisticated, so in a certain way it is compatible with the meaning a grade-schooler would recognize. However philosophy often is concerned with the meaning of words and so the naive understanding can define the boundaries of an acceptable theories.

[hoopd]

After re-reading your comments and the intro to the holes article multiple times I'm only convinced that the SEP has a horrid writing style.

The world has moved on from this type of grandiose intellectualism for a reason.