Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it true that dragons are real, and that if you try to take their gold, they'll kill you?

Nope.  Next.

In some games, yes.  In real life, no.  Can I say, "In the only experience with dragons we have, they'll kill you if you steal your gold. . . therefore until better evidence is presented, I must conclude that dragons are real, and that they care about gold"?  No.  I'm attempting to take evidence-in-context out of its context.

If you're going to respond to my describing to you why this evidence in context business is a properly fundamental logical faux pas with another example of it, I don't think that we're going to make much progress on the issue of rational or philosophical insights.  

A good example would be your metaphysical views on material monism, which you cannot actually found based on evidence, except in context: "In the context of my mundane experiences, reality consists of things with particular properties arranged in a 3-dimensional space."

I'm not sure what the problem is, nor would the comments above salvage evidence in context from the manner in which you;ve been employing the terms in any case, so....? If you, or anyone else has some "non-mundane" experience (whatever that;s supposed to be) to present for consideration as evidence, then have at it. It needs to be proffered in order for us to determine whether or not some proposition is sound, and we can;t know whether or not a conclusion is true even if a valid argument is present (and I want to repeat that you;ve been having problems on that count anyway, so soundness may, indeed, be moot for whatever metaphysical claim you're flirting with) if we can't determine that.