No you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't be asking for evidence for the general rule. The evidence is required for the particular case.
""General" is your clumsy way of saying "philosophical" and non-measurable, non-scientific."
The word "general" has a specific meaning. It has no relation to the meanings you gave it. The general rule encompasses all particular cases. In order to apply evidence, it must refer to something in particular.
You live in a hopelessly self-contained scientistic world. You lecture me on the meanings words have in your world while making claims that apply outside your scientistic world.
I will ask once more: what is the scientific evidence for the claims you made in 224 and 227? You made claims about the nature of scientific knowledge and about the non-existence of things that are not subject to scientific evidence.
That is a philosophical claim. It is an epistemological and ontological claim about what exists and what does not exist. But you claimed it was a scientific claim. If you have scientific proof for it, please supply it. Otherwise it is an unsubstantiated solipsism.
You know an awful lot about science. You know less about how science relates to other ways of thinking and reasoning and knowing. Your self-referential world makes communication nearly impossible. This will be my last request for scientific proof for your claims in 224 and 227.
And to say that none is required is an evasion. Who says none is required? Science says? Spunkets says? But the question is whether science has the last word in everything or not. If not, then science cannot authoritatively say, "no evidence is needed." If science does have the last word on this, on what basis does that philosophical, epistemological claim (namely, that science gets to decide when evidence is needed) rest? If you say, "on science" you are going in circles. If you offer some other evidence from outside science for your claim, then you refute your own claim.
You see, if everyone were a pious believer in scientism like you are, you could appeal to the Authority called Science to settle such questions and everyone would bow and scrape to Science. But not everyone is a pious believer in the religion of Science, in the scientistic faith that you hold dear. So to those who do not share you faith in Science, your appeal to Science says so doesn't cut it.
Moreover, I don't think your solipsism is even good science. I understood genuine philosophy of science to recognize that science's ability to explain everything is limited to empirical things, to measurable things and that science qua science cannot rule on whether non-measurable things exist.
But you claimed that science does rule (negatively) against the existence of such things. Okay, show me the scientific evidence.
And you come back with one more scientistic pious solipsistic response.
I won't bother you anymore, asking you to clarify what you clearly do not understand (science/nonscientific epistemology questions).