Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[The Grand Nudger]

I caught that, too, but after the edit time window was over.  I meant studying physics gave me a deep mistrust in my ability to perceive or comprehend reality.

I can feel that.....my own mistrust of my senses came earlier, as a kid.  Magic tricks, lol. I was obessessed, spent all my money on them, not because I wanted to perform them...I just wanted to know how they were done. Payed off though, the wife appreciates quick fingers.

It depends what comes up, I suppose.  If something comes up that underlies QM, then that would certainly define a new context for photons and probably everything else, as well, at least on that primitive level.  Whether it would change whether we'd call my claim that there's a dragon around the corner "true," or the OP proposition, seems unlikely.

OFC, since your claim regarding dragons is neither scientific nor evidentiary, but semantic. Nothing new or novel would necessarily make you change your assessment of that claims truth status if the mundane doesn't already. It's just bound up in how you word and such. It's an interesting thing, the way that the words we use can form/inform our thought and positions on a matter.