Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[bennyboy]

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.

It's not actually an example of anything. It's just word salad.

 
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.

I've established that truth is context dependent. Do you agree with this, or do you not?

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

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

If you think my table top is flat and smooth, I can produce evidence very much to the contrary. Microscopes have been invented.

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.  

I haven't said anything changes except truth itself. The truth value of many statements is dependent on context. In the context of the game, there are things I can interact with; in the context of a sense of world outside the screen, I'm not actually interacting with those things. In the context of my normal view of physical objects, the table is a single surface, flat and undivided. In the context of a microscopic view, it is not.

You want to make everything context-independent. But reality doesn't work that way-- not in philosophy, and definitely not in science, either.