Jump to content
Itoero

Difference Between Evidence and Proof

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Itoero said:

You are wrong. Evidence and proof used in science are not necessary 'scientific'.  

Evidence and proof in science are, by the very nature of the topic, scientific.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Itoero said:

You are wrong. Evidence and proof used in science are not necessary 'scientific'. The meaning of evidence and proof changes depending on the context the words are used in.

Read the thread again. The differences you're citing are all semantics that have been explained by other posters quite well. For some reason, you continue to use lazy, vague rules for your own definitions, yet require much stricter rules for everyone else.

Have you noticed that your requirements change "depending on the context the words are used in"? Aren't you just forcing these definitions to mean what you want them to mean?

I still don't understand how you can acknowledge that theory needs to be constantly updated, and then insist that some evidence is proof. I'm probably on your ignore list after wondering this so many times, so I suppose I'll never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm probably on your ignore list after wondering this so many times, so I suppose I'll never know.

You might be relieved to know that us mere mortals can't ignore mods. Much as we might like to!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strange said:

You might be relieved to know that us mere mortals can't ignore mods. Much as we might like to!

Phi knows that. It's a ploy to get people to try and engage the "ignore" button, only to find they can't.

Mwuhahahaha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

You might be relieved to know that us mere mortals can't ignore mods. Much as we might like to!

I just wanted to know who tried it. >:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

I just wanted to know who tried it. >:D

I found out on another forum when one of the moderators went rogue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Strange said:

I found out on another forum when one of the moderators went rogue!

To paraphrase Leonard Hofstadter, we're all just one lab accident away from being supervillains. Ignore us at your peril!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Strange said:

You might be relieved to know that us mere mortals can't ignore mods. Much as we might like to!

You have a tendency to spoil the jokes of others... :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Eise said:

You have a tendency to spoil the jokes of others... :angry:

Sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From some earlier post consigned to the outer darkness:

An issue in these discussions is that IMO the definition of 'proof' has changed for the worse over the years.

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried

or

a test applied to articles or substances [presumably theories too] to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality

 

So the apparent discovery of superluminal neutrinos proved relativity in the archaic sense - no big deal even for relativity deniers.

From some earlier thread, someone said gravity hadn't been proved.

I doubt any astronaut would admit to disbelieving in gravitational theory but after a long duration stay on the ISS their actions suggest otherwise. They e.g. release a cup, expecting it just to float and not to fall, or they decide to float downstairs rather than do it the hard way. After a few days, usually without serious injury, their changed behaviour shows they have decided gravity has been sufficiently proved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To accept the evidence-proof distinction is  equivalent to believing in truth-by-correspondence with respect to a secure foundation of knowledge.   

Science does not rest upon a such a foundation, and it has no need of one - at least for those of us who are happy to accept  the holistic and vaguer notion of truth-by-coherence.  

For such a Coherentist  a proof simply refers to a chain of evidence-based conjecture that a person is willing to swallow.

Edited by TheSim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎18‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 6:24 PM, Phi for All said:

I still don't understand

I know.

Like I've said before....many evidences can lead to proof. (proof is more conclusive) And in many papers evidence has the same meaning as proof. This absolute distinction between evidence and proof is  just your opinion and shared by many other people, mostly people that are active on and influenced by internet.

This idea that their is no scientific proof is imo another example of how semantics changes (for  certain people) in an act against religion. They like to say how scientists have faith in science.  In an act against that, people say there is no proof in science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I know.

Like I've said before....many evidences can lead to proof. (proof is more conclusive) And in many papers evidence has the same meaning as proof. This absolute distinction between evidence and proof is  just your opinion and shared by many other people, mostly people that are active on and influenced by internet.

This idea that their is no scientific proof is imo another example of how semantics changes (for  certain people) in an act against religion. They like to say how scientists have faith in science.  In an act against that, people say there is no proof in science.

I've shown (or attempted, in your case) why a distinction is necessary, but you've NEVER shown why conflating evidence and proof is meaningful. In fact, every example you give shows me that your interpretation of these definitions is exactly wrong, and unhelpful, and you only keep bringing it up because it gives you great leeway in the rigor with which you treat a topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/09/2018 at 1:53 PM, Itoero said:

What's the difference between evidence and proof?

I think a lot of evidence can lead to proof.

Fair question and yes I agree sufficient evidence can lead to proof.

I think that the answers are being made too complicated.

 

Evidence is material (data etc) which does not contradict the hypothesis. ( but may contradict some other competing hypotheses)

Evidence does not preclude the validity of all other hypotheses.

That is the job of proof.

Proof contradicts  and therefore eliminates alternative hypotheses.

 

Does this help?

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎18‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 3:09 PM, swansont said:

Proof is absolute. You can do that in math, where you can take a premise and a set of rules, and apply them.

This is a silly, black and white opinion

 

On ‎21‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 12:11 AM, Phi for All said:

This right here is why I think you're wrong. You take a solid definition of proof (100%) and then decide to also use it to describe what science looks for (best current explanation). You insist it means both things, and to me that muddies the water unnecessarily, and robs a great word of its clarity. 

As far as others using it in papers, I also blame lazy definitions. Perhaps they don't use "theory" because so many folks like you insist that it can also mean something else, in this case "something I dreamt up while showering". 

lol, you are wrong. Many people use evidence and proof as if they are synonimes.(Are they wrong?) It depends what your mother language(many languages don't have a word for 'proof') is and the field of science you are in. You are very narrowminded and you always assume your opinion is the only correct one.

Edited by Itoero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2018 at 3:21 PM, StringJunky said:

Isn't a proof an argument that can't be contradicted? Whatever path you take, you always end up in the same place.

The path is space, but what about time? An argument may meet that test today, but what about when advancing technology, maths and experience contradict the proof?  We might say, 'proof for today' but later that day a stranger walks in with a proven contradiction.  How about 'the proof is in the pudding.' Shrodinger's cat may have eaten the pudding and declared it good, then entered the box and died because the pudding contained sweet poison.  Nevertheless, we can know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Itoero said:

Many people use evidence and proof as if they are synonimes.(Are they wrong?)

Yes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

The path is space, but what about time? An argument may meet that test today, but what about when advancing technology, maths and experience contradict the proof?  We might say, 'proof for today' but later that day a stranger walks in with a proven contradiction.  How about 'the proof is in the pudding.' Shrodinger's cat may have eaten the pudding and declared it good, then entered the box and died because the pudding contained sweet poison.  Nevertheless, we can know.

Proof is for purely mathematical constructs and I think their solution is eternal. The level of certainty in real-world science is expressed as a confidence interval and anything over 95% is accepted as a fact, but note it will never be 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Yes.

 

Evidence can encourage a person to seek further evidence which will lead to proof.  But evidence is also part of proof.  So .. I think lawyers and scientists may use phrases such as 'incomplete evidence.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Evidence can encourage a person to seek further evidence which will lead to proof.  But evidence is also part of proof.  So .. I think lawyers and scientists may use phrases such as 'incomplete evidence.'

You shouldn't mix proof in science with proof in a court, but even in court, proof is based on the balance of probabilities i.e. it is not absolute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You shouldn't mix proof in science with proof in a court, but even in court, proof is based on the balance of probabilities i.e. it is not absolute.

Proof?  Will I have proof that my head will get wet if I dive into the ocean?    Even in the odds against of diving in and never being seen again my head will be wet.   

Why shouldn't proof in science and court be compared?  The evidence is in, and whether incomplete or not, we the jury/Consensus find for the so and so who proposed the conumdrum in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Proof?  Will I have proof that my head will get wet if I dive into the ocean?    Even in the odds against of diving in and never being seen again my head will be wet.   

Depends on what you’re wearing. Depends on how deep the diving point is and whether you enter head first or feet first. Even in your ridiculous example, we cannot presume to know the answer with certainty. 

3 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Why shouldn't proof in science and court be compared?  The evidence is in, and whether incomplete or not, we the jury/Consensus find for the so and so who proposed the conumdrum in the first place.

Hey, look that! Even YOU knew enough to switch from the word proof to the word evidence in your second sentence before posting. Perhaps it’s because even you’re aware they have different meanings?

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Depends on what you’re wearing. Depends on how deep the diving point is and whether you enter head first or feet first. Even in your ridiculous example, we cannot presume to know the answer with certainty. 

Hey, look that! Even YOU knew enough to switch from the word proof to the word evidence in your second sentence before posting. Perhaps it’s because even you’re aware they have different meanings?

iNow a sock puppet of BeeCee?  

I said dive in, not jump in.  But you're partially correct, I will rewrite the example.  If I dive into the great unfrozen ocean which at the point of dive is deeper than one foot, with the ocean surface calm and unwavering in depth, my head uncovered from any waterproof membrane or watertight construction, my head not covered by any waterproof substance, my head not above a temperature which will instantly convert the entire ocean to steam driven away from the head by certain principles of physics as well as instantly turning mud of sand at the bottom of the ocean into dry land .. will my head get wet?  Will I have to prove the definition of wet versus dry?  Is the water heavy or light?  Will the universe explode in the Great Rip, saving me from drowning or broken neck, in the moment I make the dive but before my head enters the ocean?   Yes .. so many important considerations.

Yes, even I am aware that incomplete evidence can be considered proof by science and law, even circumstantial evidence like two posters having the totally identical characterizations whether naughty or nice, yet are they truly sock puppets?  What does the jury say?  HO HO HO WE THE JURY don't really care, few others would as well.  I can put either on ignore, or ignore the either, depending on necessity.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

Evidence can encourage a person to seek further evidence which will lead to proof.  But evidence is also part of proof.  So .. I think lawyers and scientists may use phrases such as 'incomplete evidence.'

Exactly, evidence can lead to a proof (to whatever standard is required in, say, a court of law). 

Evidence is something like "there is a fingerprint". But it is the interpretation of that evidence, and all the other evidence, that can lead to a proof.

Even, "we found a fingerprint of the suspect on the murder weapon" isn't proof that the suspect is the murderer. There may be other evidence that proves the suspect was out of the country at the time. Or that explains why the fingerprint could be there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

iNow a sock puppet of BeeCee?  

Damn, busted! I guess it’s time to come clean. 

I suppose I always knew it would come out that I’ve spent over a decade at this site contributing nearly 20,000 posts on varied topics... and all just to bolster the master plan and ready the battleground such that one day when you ultimately registered at SFN 11 years later... when it finally all came together once you joined this community one month ago complete with your ironclad logic and inpenetrateble arguments... that I might hope to fool the flock into not taking you seriously.

Well spotted, Mr Homes. Well spotted, indeed. You have clearly bested me with your awe inspiring genius. I concede.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.