Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a lot of words for someone refusing to provide an actual example.

You don't like my example.  Tough titties?  Honestly, whats the problem?  Whatever you had to say about truth statements you can say about that one.  

Not sure why you think truth in context is even arguable against.  

I'm not arguing with you about context, Benny, I;ve repeatedly assured you of that. I'm informing you that the manner in which you've employed the terms amounts to nothing more or less than equivocation.

In the context of my normal experience, a table top is flat and smooth.

That's because the tabletop is flat and smooth.

In the context of QM mechanics, there's no flat and smooth surface.  

OFC there are.  QM is the underlying business of flat and smooth surfaces, of any surface, of anything.... isn't it?  

It is true, in the context of doing my work, that the table is flat.  It is not true, in the context of looking in a microscope, that the table is flat.  See?  Same assertion, different context, different truth value.

Here again we see a misconception applied to support equivocation, just as before with the video games. Nothing about -the table- changes when you look at it with your eyes or a microscope. It was always what you see before you under magnification.


You need to stop approaching this as some great debate between us where someone is right or wrong, in any case.  That's not whats going on.  I'm trying to help you understand why being right about any particular claim - even the claims I dispute-  won't change the fact that the positions and criticisms you use them as support for are not logically valid -regardless- of their accuracy - and so not true. Presumably, if they are accurate, theres a logically valid way to express it...and as I suggested before, perhaps you should be looking for that rather than defending this? Similarly, if they are logically valid, and also true, there's a valid way to express -that- with sound propositions. Once you've got that handled, not one or the other, but both, you get to call something true, but not before..this, ofc, in the context of logic, of philosphy (see, I can use the word context without committing a basic gaff, I bet you can too). As I expressed way, way back at th beginning, I'm not sure how we would go about sourcing those sound propositions in the absence of evidence..but I did try to softball you with my example, which you dislike, for whatever reason.......