Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[Mudhammam]

But the thing is, one claim is abstract, and the other posits a claim about reality. When we're talking about the existence of a being in reality, it is not an abstraction, and cannot be evidenced by simple words.

"Being" is an abstraction.  What I perceive in reality are conglomerations of colors and shapes.  When one of these shapes is examined *very closely*, one discovers that it is a conglomeration of more shapes.  In other words, that it -- this particular shape -- is individuated in my mind as as a distinct unit with its own existence which is independent from everything else -- but that it also shares "properties" which I identify through common terms -- is an abstraction.  "I," "self," etc., are similarly concepts that are abstract and presumed to be beings in reality, but these represent a more difficult, or, at least ethereal, case.  I think theists would rightly contend that if a God exists, he/she/it cannot be dismissed on the grounds that it is like downbeatplum's claim of seeing a dinosaur lurking behind a bush; it must instead be accepted or dismissed on the grounds that it is more like an entity such as a self or a soul.

(Not sure how much this is related, but as a side note, "Being," "one," "thing," are included in what Bertrand Russell called "metaphysical terms." See p. 473 here: http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Hi...osophy.pdf).

---

Yep.

What if I do not believe the senses can arrive at any kind of existential truth-- that they can be known to be true only in their own context?  What if I ask for evidence, as per your OP, that experiences CAN be used to validate metaphysical truth claims at all?

In short, what if I ask for evidence that evidence is the right way to go about proving philosophical or metaphysical truths?  Since said cannot be provided without caveat ("Oh it's the best we have so far, of course we can revise it later because science. . . "), then does it negate itself in paradox and disappear in a puff of smoke called "pragmatic assumption"?

I would agree that metaphysical truth cannot be validated by experience alone, although I see no reason why pure "abstractions" and "beings in reality" (to borrow from Thumpalumpacus' distinction) should not on some level be intertwined given that all of our notions, including those of "metaphysical truth," are "corrupted" (if you will) by the fact that we are but a "bundle of impressions" in and about this world. Or, if we are something, and this does not include either our experiences of external or internal states, I do not know what it is that this "something" is meant to suggest.  But certainly there might be some truths that we can only know through reason and not experience, such as the knowledge that there are other minds which exist and operate independently of my own, and I think you would be right to demand evidence that all philosophical or metaphysical truths demand evidence.  And yes, at the end of the day, if there is no perfect solution to a problem, I see nothing irrational with going with the one that is most pragmatic.

...Did that answer your question?