Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[Mudhammam]

I frequently come across the claim that "claims demand evidence."  Is this always true?  Does the claim that "claims demand evidence" itself demand evidence?  And does the claim of the claim that "claims demand evidence" demand evidence that the claim itself demands evidence?  And....

No, I'm just kidding.  But in all earnestness, what evidence do I have that true claims are always accompanied by evidence?  Isn't that a claim that asserts itself to be true by definition?  And if not, then in what sense are claims about our various conceptual relations evident, in a world where seemingly no two people agree on the minutest details?  Are not our reasons, and the very persons whom we believe to be in possession of them, namely, ourselves, in some true sense no more than unique structures of sight and sound produced by (or conducive of?) an inward understanding that forms sets of propositions which we (it?) accept to be true by definition? Hence, minds are creators of meaning, inventors or (discoverers?) of truth, such as the statement that "claims demand evidence."  If this is ultimately question-begging, then what is the non-question-begging point from which to start?

[vorlon13]

If you came into the office around noon and said it was a sunshiny day, I'd take the claim at face value and leave my umbrella on the cloak rack when I leave fro lunch hour.

If you instead come into the office around noon and said Elvis Presley was fucking Richard Nixon's ass in the handicap parking space right up by the building, well, I'm gonna need a cell phone picture at least, and a video with sound wouldn't be asking too much, in my opinion.

[Mudhammam]

I was thinking more about claims like, "You should care about evidence," or something of that nature.

[Minimalist]

Yes if you want to be taken seriously.

[emjay]

It's funny you should be thinking about the nature of truth just as I was. Not funny really.. just a coincidence... but still. Anyway I was thinking about it from it from a different perspective... a psychological perspective ...so who knows if it has relevance at all to what you're saying, but I'll say it anyway just because, why not?

That psychologically truth is only what you believe is real. So waking reality is truth to the extent that you believe it is real. But dreams can also be believed to be real as can imagination/hypnosis. So in my considered opinion, truth is a measure of the coherency of a context and nothing more. In waking life you have a lot of 'truths' active in a context... such as where you are, knowledge of gravity, what you see and hear etc... and they 'constrain' any further additions of truth. If you imagine something... say that you're somewhere else... it can't be believed as truth whilst those constraining truths are active/in focus but there comes a point where you can get 'lost in thought' and that is, in my opinion, when the new, imagined context becomes strong and active enough to push the truths in the waking consciousness out of awareness so they no longer constrain it, thus when lost in thought that becomes truth. So in my thinking, the experience of truth... belief... is basically the measure of the activity and coherency of an uncontested/isolated context in mental focus, whether it be waking reality, a dream, hypnosis, or even just a good book.

[Cyberman]

[Mudhammam]

At which point does the relevant part begin?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

First of all, thanks for sharing such a brilliant thought.

Second of all, my opinion on

Does the claim that "claims demand evidence" itself demand evidence?

is that, the statement "claims demand evidence" is strictly true on paper but not necessarily true in practice. This is because the truth of a statement is interpreted subjectively by a person, meaning, a true statement can be interpreted as a false statement or a false statement can be interpreted as a true statement which is all entirely depended on the person that is doing the interpretation.

[Minimalist]

Also depends on the nature of the claim.  Richard Carrier has a whole discussion on it.

The claim, "I have a car" is quite an ordinary claim and most people wouldn't even consider contesting it.  Whereas the claim, "I have a spaceship" in quite extraordinary and no one would accept it without evidence.

Compared to the spaceship....which is at least possible as we know they exist in one form or another...the claim "an angel whispered the words of god into my ear while I was sleeping in a cave" is more than an order of magnitude more unlikely than a spaceship and requires the most precise evidence to demonstrate its truthfulness.

[robvalue]

This is my take on it:

We must be careful not to confuse proofs with evidence. And yes, any particular claim may well be true but doesn't/can't have evidence provided. True but irrelevant. Dismissing a claim is not, by default, making a counter claim. And people can make whatever stupid claims they want, as much as they like. It's not like I can stop them. There are also the problems of coherency and relevance before you even consider truth.

Generally speaking, proofs apply to abstract systems, and demonstrate a claim to be true. Evidence applies to reality, and adds confidence that a claim is true. Science ultimately deals with the latter, although obviously it utilizes many convenient abstract systems while studying reality.

Personally, if I make such a statement as, "Claims require evidence", I'm employing a shorthand. Attacking the statement itself on semantic grounds, as if it was a claim of proof, is ignoring the shorthand. One of those stupid published apologists called this the "Roadrunner tactic" and was very proud of it. (I'm being serious, I'm not making fun of our member with the same name. I'll see if I can find the video.)

I'm actually suggesting a pragmatic approach, such as, "Experience has shown me that spending time considering claims accompanied by evidence is more likely to produce a useful idea regarding reality than considering claims which do not or cannot have accompanying evidence. This is because the evidence gives a workable method of establishing what is true, by demonstrating something has been learned and applied to reality." My experience, coupled with that of every sensible person who seems to agree with me, is the evidence. I'm always open to counter-evidence, of course. You can consider me to be holding up a pre-amble card with this type of thing most of the time, including for this post.

If I talked in such precise terms all the time, I'd pretty quickly only be talking to myself. I assume, when talking informally, that most people will use common sense to add these implications.