Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[The Grand Nudger]

And truth is "that which is true."  So is it true that when I play a game, my character can explore a 3D world, interact with other characters and objects, and enjoy gains and suffer losses?

The obvious answer is yes and no-- it's true in the context of that game.  For example, if I know there's a statue just around the corner, I can ask other characters if there's a statue there, or I can run around the corner a few thousand times just to reassure myself.

But in the context of human life, that truth isn't so true.  We can see that there's no actual physical space in which the characters interact-- there's a virtual space driven by software and expressed through a computer monitor.

So if I ask "Is there really a statue around that corner?" we're in a pickle-- we cannot establish the truth value of that statement unless we give it a context.

If you find that a statement is simultaneously true and false then you have yourself a surefire indicator that the question is malformed, the answer is malformed, or both.  The moment you say "context" you've identified the misstep.  Equivocation.  

There is no pickle, and there is no spoon...nor..is there a statue around the corner.  That's just shorthand we use to crush the noobs bro.  Now go beast some baddie through the wall, 360 noscope.  

I think you're asking the wrong kind of questions.  Any experience can be called "evidence" if you think it reveals truth.  But you're still stuck with the problem of context-- some things' truth values are dependent on the context in which the truth statements are posed.

Not every experience is evident, so..no?  

The error that we see so much in philosophical discussions is that contextual truths are generalized beyond their scope.  Evidence is a good example: is anything we can see evidence for or against any philosophical idea about metaphysical truth?  No, it's not.

Such as when a person imparts some greater meaning into simple equivocation..............?

There seems little point to me in attempting to express the easily-expressible.  It's the boundaries of understanding and communication at which the interesting stuff happens.

Maybe, but how would we know?   It's not like we can express it.  

If you want to take truth-in-context which supports other truths in the same context, you can always call that "evidence," because evidence is just a word talking about that.

Again, no?  It's that which is evident.  

But it is in our nature to expand our understanding, and that process starts by determining which truths can be extended into which contexts.  Evidence-in-this-context cannot be reasonably expected to extend into evidence-in-a-metaphysical-context, and appeals to evidence for metaphysical ideas aren't the slam-dunks that the askers really think they are.  It's just evidence that people don't understand how evidence works.

Sounds like somebody doesn't like being asked for evidence in support of their metaphysical claims.  Unfortunately, there's no way around it.  The "sound" component of "sound and valid" is evidentiary.  Even the requirement that a proposition be sound is evidentiary.  Now we're entertaining a special pleading argument in defense of equivocation. At this point it feels a little bit silly to talk about truth at all. We can't get there from here.