Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[Tangra]

It's funny you should be thinking about the nature of truth just as I was. Not funny really.. just a coincidence... but still. Anyway I was thinking about it from it from a different perspective... a psychological perspective ...so who knows if it has relevance at all to what you're saying, but I'll say it anyway just because, why not?

That psychologically truth is only what you believe is real. So waking reality is truth to the extent that you believe it is real. But dreams can also be believed to be real as can imagination/hypnosis. So in my considered opinion, truth is a measure of the coherency of a context and nothing more. In waking life you have a lot of 'truths' active in a context... such as where you are, knowledge of gravity, what you see and hear etc... and they 'constrain' any further additions of truth. If you imagine something... say that you're somewhere else... it can't be believed as truth whilst those constraining truths are active/in focus but there comes a point where you can get 'lost in thought' and that is, in my opinion, when the new, imagined context becomes strong and active enough to push the truths in the waking consciousness out of awareness so they no longer constrain it, thus when lost in thought that becomes truth. So in my thinking, the experience of truth... belief... is basically the measure of the activity and coherency of an uncontested/isolated context in mental focus, whether it be waking reality, a dream, hypnosis, or even just a good book.

You don't even need to go so deep. It's as simple as two people holding opposing views. You've already got two realities.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

---

I frequently come across the claim that "claims demand evidence."  Is this always true?  Does the claim that "claims demand evidence" itself demand evidence?  And does the claim of the claim that "claims demand evidence" demand evidence that the claim itself demands evidence?  And....

No, I'm just kidding.  But in all earnestness, what evidence do I have that true claims are always accompanied by evidence?  Isn't that a claim that asserts itself to be true by definition?  And if not, then in what sense are claims about our various conceptual relations evident, in a world where seemingly no two people agree on the minutest details?  Are not our reasons, and the very persons whom we believe to be in possession of them, namely, ourselves, in some true sense no more than unique structures of sight and sound produced by (or conducive of?) an inward understanding that forms sets of propositions which we (it?) accept to be true by definition? Hence, minds are creators of meaning, inventors or (discoverers?) of truth, such as the statement that "claims demand evidence."  If this is ultimately question-begging, then what is the non-question-begging point from which to start?

I think that if you want to argue a claim you should have evidence. You're asking an ontological question as to the nature of knowledge should such exist

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk