Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's quite the strawman you're putting up, there.  I've repeatedly said that you're not changing the things themselves, but that truth statements about them are dependent on context.

The trouble, is that you've failed to present an example of that that isn't an equivocation.

The fact is that my desk is flat as I look at it and interact with it, and is very far from flat under a microscope.  You can waffle around all you want, but if you don't see what I've just said as apparent, there's not much more to talk about.

You're trying to use the same terms to ask two entirely disparate questions.  That's not a truth dependent on context, it;s just invalid argumentation.  Again, and as always, it's not yes and no to the same question, it's yes or no to different questions.   I want you to understand here, that I'm comfortable with paradox, paradox does exist, questions whose answer is simultaneously yes and no, claims which are simultaneously true and false, or at least seem to be so.  The video game example..not one of those.  The photon example, not one of those.  The table, not one of those.  

I think my point is clear enough-- if truth is dependent on context, then evidence must be gathered in the context in which you want to establish truths.

Meh, I had to ask, because when you say something like this, it sounds -exactly- like epistemic contextualism, but your examples don't line up with epistemic contextualism.  

If my wife wants to know if there's really an apple on my desk, then she can walk into my room and see.

Sure.

If she wants to know if reality consists of a material monism and nothing else, then hitting things with a rock, no matter how convincing, will not provide the kind of evidence she needs-- as metaphysics and physics are different contexts.

Does that somehow remove the requirement of evidence in determining whether or not a claim is sound...a requirement for any pursuant conclusion to be considered true? See, I'm not really concerned with whether or not reality is made of material this and that's and nothing else. It may be that something, somewhere, is made of something other than material this or thats. Before I entertain the idea as anything other than an idle what if, im going to need to see some evidence for the proposition, to determine whether or not it might be sound, so that we can then apply a valid argument...and arrive at what might be truth. The rules of the system don't change, regardless of whether or not we exist in a material monism...and the bar doesn't get lowered on account of the possibility that we don't.