Peter is right, Sy. There’s no difference of opinion here between Peter and me about what counts as evidence, whether we call it ‘good set theory’ or ‘P and Vs’.
There is another point. Wouldn’t you want a discussion of truth in set theory to be receptive to what is going on in the rest of mathematics?
I don’t mean to be cranky about this, Sy, but I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve repeated that my Thin Realist recognizes evidence of both your Type 1 (from set theory) and Type 2 (from mathematics). I think I’ve mentioned that the foundational goal of set theory in particular plays a central role (especially in Naturalism in Mathematics).