Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[The Grand Nudger]

This is why I'm so obsessed with the idea of truth-in-context.  All the things we know can be called true, even objectively true, in context.  In the context of my everyday life, I'm very confident that if I know there's an apple on my desk, and ask my wife to go into my room and tell me what's on the desk, she'll report that fact.

Maybe, if there actually is an apple on your desk.  Would she humor you if there weren't?  

Whether my wife and the apple exist outside my experience of them is a much different context.  Whether the Universe and its rules are all that reality consists of is, too.  When we start talking about things like that, we have to acknowledge that everything we "know" is limited in context.

Limited in an irrelevant way that leads to no functional correction of any term or principle.  If, as before with the matrix or mind of god, it's all happening inside your experience and there alone, that's just what all the referent terms refer to..and there may or may not be an apple on the desk of your experience, your wife, who may or may not exist solely in the theater of your experience, may or may not report the experience apple......depending on whether or not it's there, in your experience, or she'll humor you if it isn't...again...in your experience....your level of confidence in any of the above, as in any other formulation, would be variable, as it is now....and all of the things would be precisely the same as before for all of the same reasons, as always.

To reflect back to the OP, I'd say that evidence can be taken as a brute fact IN CONTEXT: it doesn't need to be validated, and we do not need "evidence for evidence," because we are defining our context BY evidence.  Evidence itself is the framework for our mundane world view.

Pretty much, but it makes all of the wonderings above moot.

---

Because evidence isn't a single principle, indivisible.  You can refer to my above post to mudhammam.  If I'm a detective, and I discover your DNA at a crime scene, that's evidence-in-context: in the context of living out my mundane life, I accept that the DNA demonstrates that you were in that place.

OFC it's a single, indivisible principle.  Evidence is "that which is evident".  

If I want philosophical evidence that you, the crime scene, and the DNA are supported only by a Universe with its properties and rules, and that that universe isn't supported necessarily by something outside it and therefore non-physical, then you can't point at the bullet hole in someone's head and take it as evidence in that larger context.

Philosophy does not provide evidence, it's incapable.  It provides proof, truth, which is itself built upon that which is evident. It's nothing more or less than a system of arranging and exploring claims and relationships regarding that which is evident.  GIGO.

You call it axiomatic.  I call it brute fact in context.  I don't think in the context of daily life that we can even attempt to discard evidence as a useful tool.  But daily life is not the only context we attempt to think or communicate about, and we have to be more sensitive to what we take as given when we try to broaden the context of discussion.

Brute fact in context and axiom are, in the ways that you use the terms, interchangeable.  I allow for what is evident to be something other than a fact.  I have to ask, though, what context is it that we can eschew the evident?  What context can we avoid refering to what is evident, and how might we manage doing that, as creatures who define context....as you say above, -by- what is evident?

I get that you're trying to reach for something, but honestly, anytime I see these sorts of comments they strike me as empty deepity. An attempt to express the in-expressable, for whatever reason, to be generous. Minds of gods and matrices and even "your experience", for example, are subjects that rely on elaborate evidentiary underpinnings, whether true or false. Without those evidentiary underpinnings they are non-referent, empty terms, meaningless.