FOM: Russell01 meeting abstract

[Alasdair Urquhart]

I am going to be at the same conference on Russell in Munich
shortly, but I thought I'd raise a question for discussion
that arises from Harvey Friedman's abstract.
I'm inclined to agree with his conclusions, but nevertheless
there is something that still bothers me.  Harvey writes:

 We Conjecture that all intellectually sensible consistent formal systems
 are formally interpretable in current set theory (with large cardinals). It
 should follow that all intellectually sensible consistent formal systems
 are synonymous with a fragment of current set theory (with large
 cardinals). 

Now, isn't it true that we tend to define "intellectually sensible"
as "interpretable in current set theory"?  If so, there seems
to be a circularity in the argument.