Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[emjay]

Epistemic contextualists take the position that all knowledge is contextual.  The position can be espoused rationally.  They maintain that a knowledge claim cannot exist independant of context but carefully add the proviso that the standards for knowledge do not change with context.

Cool. I'll have to look into that

If you think about it, even propositional logic is contextual; each premise and [sub]conclusion is one building block in the context of an argument... the stronger the relationships and/or the more premises, the stronger the context. And then on top of that, there's the higher level context of how proofs build on top of proofs in the same way.

---

Actually there's a better way of putting it; premises are both arguments that need premises and premises to other arguments, so it has limitless potential for (I can't think of the word for it... like in OOP... a limitless hierarchy... just like neurons). So propositional logic can just be considered a more refined and standardised way of doing what the brain does. By adhering to its rules and standards it forces it to reach good conclusions so the potential for the discovery of objective truth, manifested in contexts, is pretty much limitless