Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[The Grand Nudger]

Thank you, (clearly) I never knew that. That's very interesting. But would an objection along similar lines be valid... if a sensory limitation could be found that proves it has to be a constructed perception rather than direct? Do you think there is any such thing?

I'll sleep on that one.  

Your ears for instance... again two of them... required for locating an object in 3D space? Or I suppose that might fail on account of location not being a property?

Same issue as before, actually.  You can triangulate a noise by moving your receiver, provided that the noise is static or repeats itself.   Record it in location a.  Move shop to location b.  

K, are you absolutely sure about what you said about the eyes? Cos I have a lazy eye, and no depth perception except from visual cues of comparative size... and everything is 2D to me... like a cardboard cutout... and I can't catch a ball for the same reason.

You have no concept of a sphere, you can't visualize the sphere?  The problem you're describing is one of placement.  The ball is coming at you, you're not getting multiple angles, or more accurately there isn't great enough disparity between the angles (in the arc, for example) for you to make a robust model.  That's an issue of expediency, convenience, but not of possibility.  That 3d models can be produced with sufficient 2d images isn't theoretical, it's a practical application.  We do it commercially.   You probably do it as well, unless, ofc, you're actually incapable of visualizing a ball as a sphere.  Can you imagine what the back of a baseball looks like while looking at it's front? Can you spin it around in your mind?