Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[bennyboy]

@benny. I'm still having trouble with your (2), maybe because I see it more likely that instead of "truth in context" it's "truth is context". In the sense that the only time you are certain about something is when you have no questions... ie you understand it... all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. But as soon as you have questions... ie there's an unexplained gap in the context... some relationships are unknown... then you feel doubt and uncertainty until they're resolved. So from that perspective I would argue that it's impossible to have an isolated truth in a context and instead the stable context itself is truth, and that's how I see it both phenomenally (as described above)  and neurally. So where in (2) you allow for an isolated truth to have different values in different contexts and still be the same thing, I disagree and suggest that the truth includes the context that surrounds your isolated truths and therefore each context is a separate truth.

Okay, I'm reading this as something like plurality really being subsets of a singular truth. So a coin has two faces, and talking about face-up and face-down states as different is to unnecessarily isolate aspects of a single coin which always embodies both those states.

I think light particle-wave "duality" is a good example of this dilemma of perspective that matters a little more. Is a photon a wave, a particle, neither, or both? The scientific view, I believe, agrees with your (and Rhythm's I think) idea of truth: it is truly both, a state of superposition, and only by changing the context completely (by observing it, for example) would you change your truth statement. But you could argue that the question is no longer the same-- you're talking about something different, now, and there's no reason the truth value should be the same. I think this is close to what you mean by "context IS truth," right? And I think, if Rhythm happens to read this, that he'd take this position as well.

However, in this case, a photon will eventually be resolved into a particular nature-- either a particle or a wave-- so saying a photon is (If observed, particle) <-> (if not observed, wave) as a single state doesn't really make sense to me. I prefer to view it as truth-in-context. In the context of an observer, the photon has a single value (acts-like-particle), and not the other. In the context of a lack of observer, the photon in the end has a single value (acts like wave), and not the other. That theoretical trickery of a photon in motion no longer matters when you're looking at a photographic plate and collecting your result.

In other words, WITHOUT context, the truth of statements about photons must either emobody ambiguity or be called undefined. WITH context, you can have a singular truth value, and with multiple contexts, you can have multiple truth values.