You can call it whatever you like, depending on your attitude towards it. From a fallacy to an absolutely objective Platonic realism.
I think it is a naive realistic view on history. It is the same realism as expressed by many physicists. A reality is assumed which pulls our thoughts in the right direction. Now this can of course not be denied. It is the question though how we know that our theories are indeed rightly pulled. Just stating that this happens automatically in the course of time is, well, naive. History shows that this is not the case and ignoring history or even subject it to a suppose rule is, well, naive.
This view inhibits progress as new theories, mathematical or not, are excluded. Views that diverge are seen as not real and will consequently be put aside, ignored, or even laughed at and ridiculed.
So one can call the view a conservative anti-revolutionary Platonic realism, in favor of the existing modes of thinking.