Difference Between Evidence and Proof

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Well spotted, Mr Homes.

You even make the same careless spelling mistakes as Beecee!

[iNow]

Lol. Apparently I’m also a sock puppet of Apple autocorrect 

[coffeesippin]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

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.

Sherlock Holmes:  "Mr. Watson, I need you.  This fellow is saying I'm right.  That doesn't happen very often around here, and I'm confused.  Could you make me a tea?"

Watson:  "Certainly Sir.  And I shall have a word with the Gentleman as well."

(Changing posture slightly to avoid a stiff neck.)  "Mr. iNow.  Please understand that Mr. Holmes operates on reason, evidence and questioning, which is why he included a question mark in his opening statement to you.  His was not a statement of fact.  However, even I, Mr. Holmes unworthy assistant, can easily see similarities in personage between you and BeeCee, positive as well as negative, not the least of which is sarcasm, though you show creative humour which BeeCee may not. In any case, I know Mr. Holmes well, and he certainly did not mean to insult you in any way."

Watson turning to Holmes:  "Perhaps, Sir, you could reassure Mr. iNow of your honourable intention?'

Holmes, looking off into the distance.  "The evidence was NOT conclusive, Mr. Watson..."   Then turning to iNow, "... which is why I DID include a question mark in my statement; and which is why I did NOT you on ignore, yet, despite your obvious insults.  Now, if you both will excuse me, I'll take my tea to bed."

 

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, Itoero said:

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.

Try to follow me on this one. It has nothing to do with narrow mindedness. It's just a desire to have meaningful definitions. 

It's like I have a party where I'm serving two kinds of punch, one with no alcohol, and you keep insisting the non-alcoholic punch needs some vodka, because sometimes people who don't drink alcohol want some alcohol. I want to have two separate punchbowls so the the guests have a clear choice, but you want both to be exactly the same. I think you're wrong about the difference between evidence and proof for the same reason. You're changing one different thing to be just like something else, and you're ruining the reason why they should be different and separate.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Itoero said:

This is a silly, black and white opinion

Calling it silly is not an actual rebuttal.

It is a fact that proofs exist in math.

 

8 hours ago, Itoero said:

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.

Many people use "theory" to mean "guess", but that's not what it means in science, where some words have a much narrower definition.

3 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

I said dive in, not jump in.

I see Olympic divers enter the water feet-first from time to time.

 

[coffeesippin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Calling it silly is not an actual rebuttal.

It is a fact that proofs exist in math.

 

Many people use "theory" to mean "guess", but that's not what it means in science, where some words have a much narrower definition.

I see Olympic divers enter the water feet-first from time to time.

 

Good point, Swanson .. and you must be especially familiar with the Swan Dive.   And some springboard divers dive up into the air before doing summersaults and twists and entering feet or head first.  Here's one .. "A sudden movement in a specified direction.

‘she made a dive for the fridge to quench her thirst."    

 

Maybe we could all meet in a little dive for the same purpose.  Although Phi seems to have a cozy living room.

Edited December 4, 2018 by coffeesippin
Get us out of the dive into Phi's. There's poetry in that!

[Itoero]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

Yes.

 

Ok then. That's just your opinion, which is shared by many people on this forum. apparently.

[coffeesippin]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

You even make the same careless spelling mistakes as Beecee!

I didn't want to say that, Strange.     

[Itoero]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It is a fact that proofs exist in math.

It's also a fact that semantics concerning sciences changes depending on your language, education, sciencefield...

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Itoero

[StringJunky]

35 minutes ago, Itoero said:

It's also a fact that semantics concerning sciences changes depending on your language, education, sciencefield...

 

When in Rome...

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

It's also a fact that semantics concerning sciences changes depending on your language, education, sciencefield...

You've never once given me a decent reason why you think it's a good thing to have proof and evidence mean the same thing. I've asked you several times, and I get nothing but waffle. Again, for the umpteenth time, why do you think it's better if evidence and proof mean the same thing? Can you offer any support for your stance? I've explained why I think it's better that they don't. 

To be clear, I'm not asking for instances where you think they might mean the same thing. I want to know why you feel we need to take two different concepts and make them one.

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

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.

 

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

coffeesippin, stop with the allegations of sock-puppetry. They aren't conducive to discussion, are off-topic, and are insulting to those you are accusing (not to mention flat-out wrong). Please also stop with the bizarre off topic rambling. Simply put, if you have nothing constructive to contribute to the topic of this thread, don't post.  

 

[beecee]

18 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

iNow a sock puppet of BeeCee?  

 OMFG!! I must really have trod on his toes pretty hard! First on ignore [or so he says, But I reckon its a porky pie] then numerous complaints, and now a sock puppet!!! My apologies iNow.  Can someone though pass onto my friend, that a scientific theory is the highest  accolade any scientific model can have, other then a law. His continued arse up approach to science here as far as proof and evidence goes, and other even more dramatic errors, misinterpretations in other threads is really simple basic stuff.

PS: Not sure what thread it was but I gave "Phi for all" a thumbs up for a great no holds barred description of coffeesippin....shame I could not have made it two!

Edited December 5, 2018 by beecee

[hypervalent_iodine]

32 minutes ago, beecee said:

 OMFG!! I must really have trod on his toes pretty hard! First on ignore [or so he says, But I reckon its a porky pie] then numerous complaints, and now a sock puppet!!! My apologies iNow.  Can someone though pass onto my friend, that a scientific theory is the highest  accolade any scientific model can have, other then a law. His continued arse up approach to science here as far as proof and evidence goes, and other even more dramatic errors, misinterpretations in other threads is really simple basic stuff.

PS: Not sure what thread it was but I gave "Phi for all" a thumbs up for a great no holds barred description of coffeesippin....shame I could not have made it two!

!

Moderator Note

Staying on topic is a rule that applies to everyone, for the record.

 

[Itoero]

 

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You've never once given me a decent reason why you think it's a good thing to have proof and evidence mean the same thing. I've asked you several times, and I get nothing but waffle. Again, for the umpteenth time, why do you think it's better if evidence and proof mean the same thing? Can you offer any support for your stance? I've explained why I think it's better that they don't. 

I don't think that in any way.

 I base myself on what I read. There are many papers that use 'proof' as if it means evidence. Go to the Nature website and type in 'proof' in the search-engine. I've linked that before.

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Itoero said:

There are many papers that use 'proof' as if it means evidence. Go to the Nature website and type in 'proof' in the search-engine.

I just tried that. All the results I saw were either using proof in the mathematical sense or it was in the phrase "proof of concept". I didn't see any where the word proof was used as an alternative to evidence.

So can you provide an example of what you are talking about. (Should be easy if there are so many.)

[Phi for All]

38 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I don't think that in any way.

 I base myself on what I read. There are many papers that use 'proof' as if it means evidence. Go to the Nature website and type in 'proof' in the search-engine. I've linked that before.

So are you suggesting this is a good thing and should continue? Your whole argument seems to be something like "Others have used these words synonymously, so they mean the same thing to me". You claim you "don't think that in any way", yet you've been arguing along these same lines. If you don't think it's a good idea to equate the two words, then why did you start this thread?

[coffeesippin]

13 hours ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

!

Moderator Note

coffeesippin, stop with the allegations of sock-puppetry. They aren't conducive to discussion, are off-topic, and are insulting to those you are accusing (not to mention flat-out wrong). Please also stop with the bizarre off topic rambling. Simply put, if you have nothing constructive to contribute to the topic of this thread, don't post.  

 

  I'll send you a message so my response won't detract from the thread.

On 12/4/2018 at 1:06 PM, Phi for All said:

You've never once given me a decent reason why you think it's a good thing to have proof and evidence mean the same thing. I've asked you several times, and I get nothing but waffle. Again, for the umpteenth time, why do you think it's better if evidence and proof mean the same thing? Can you offer any support for your stance? I've explained why I think it's better that they don't. 

To be clear, I'm not asking for instances where you think they might mean the same thing. I want to know why you feel we need to take two different concepts and make them one.

Evidence can contribute to proof.  As someone says elsewhere in this thread, and that is important enough to raise again.  But can evidence BE proof, for instance, a clear video of a person accused of a crime committing the crime?  Perhaps the accused has an identical twin?   Then the video is only evidence, not proof.  

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Evidence can contribute to proof.  As someone says elsewhere in this thread, and that is important enough to raise again.  But can evidence BE proof, for instance, a clear video of a person accused of a crime committing the crime?  Perhaps the accused has an identical twin?   Then the video is only evidence, not proof.  

So it's a good thing to have a word like evidence mean what it means, and another word proof mean something different, right? It's important that proof means 100% surety (proven), and evidence is support for an explanation. Precision in defining terms is a hallmark of science. Clarity is part of each step in the scientific method, especially when communicating results of experiments testing an hypothesis.  

[coffeesippin]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

So it's a good thing to have a word like evidence mean what it means, and another word proof mean something different, right? It's important that proof means 100% surety (proven), and evidence is support for an explanation. Precision in defining terms is a hallmark of science. Clarity is part of each step in the scientific method, especially when communicating results of experiments testing an hypothesis.  

Clarity, yes!  Won't it be wonderful when it comes!    

Where we go wrong is how serious can be the effects when we forget cases in law and science where evidence was taken as proof, then proven wrong.  Thousands of totally innocent people have been hanged or electrocuted, other have spent decades in prison.  Scientists have been considered lunatic and outcast, some into poverty, after presenting evidence proving previous scientific truths wrong.

I know example are not necessary to you, Phi, but here is a good link for the curious.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/09/27/these-scientific-theories-were-accepted-once-but-were-later-proven-wrong/#59bee3c64da2

[studiot]

38 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Evidence can contribute to proof.  As someone says elsewhere in this thread, and that is important enough to raise again.  But can evidence BE proof, for instance, a clear video of a person accused of a crime committing the crime?  Perhaps the accused has an identical twin?   Then the video is only evidence, not proof.  

Can we please discuss Scientific evidence and proofs, not legal or spiritual (in the whisky sense) or any other sense.?

 

For example take a typical schoolboy experiment to 'proove' Hooke's Law where he does some measurements and draws a graph and then says

I have obtained a straight line through the origin so I have prooved Hooke's Law.

 

Has he?

[coffeesippin]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Can we please discuss Scientific evidence and proofs, not legal or spiritual (in the whisky sense) or any other sense.?

 

For example take a typical schoolboy experiment to 'proove' Hooke's Law where he does some measurements and draws a graph and then says

I have obtained a straight line through the origin so I have prooved Hooke's Law.

 

Has he?

The topic is:  

Difference Between Evidence and Proof

By Itoero, September 18 in General Philosophy 

          With all the great respect and appreciation due you as a person who doesn't seem to cause trouble around here, Studiot, I suggest if you want to discuss the topic purely in science you might open a topic there.

           First a definition: "Hooke's Law is a principle of physics that states that the that the force needed to extend or compress a spring by some distance is proportional to that distance."  

          As a person who has worked with mechanical springs in the physical world I can tell you that not all the material in the coil or part which springs is always of equal value, so that even in the physical world Hooke's Law is flawed.  In the cosmological world, with the distances involved, the flaw becomes of immense consideration.   That's one reason I place laws of physics in their proper place, as guidelines which may or may not work.  

Zap .. I thank you for the compliment on my logic, it scores highly, and contributes greatly to my arguments, which may be why some people find them difficult.  Logic is simplicity itself.

Edited December 5, 2018 by coffeesippin
Comment on Hooke's Law

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

The topic is:  

Difference Between Evidence and Proof

By Itoero, September 18 in General Philosophy 

          With all the great respect and appreciation due you as a person who doesn't seem to cause trouble around here, Studiot, I suggest if you want to discuss the topic purely in science you might open a topic there.

           I can't respond to Hooke's Law.

Yes indeed it is.

But like most things in this world,

It needs to be taken in context.

And the context here is that ScienceForums is fundamentally a Scientific website.

So subjects such as General Philosophy, Religion etc need to be discussed from the point of view of of their relation to /  interaction with Science and from a scientific perspective.

Obviously purely philosophical material (in this case) will be also introduced but its link to Science needs to be there.

I would venture that a 'compare and contrast' type contribution to the discussion is perfectly legitimate.

Indeed I have seen a professional barrister member here do exactly that comparing the legal and scientific interpretations of evidence and proof.

 

There is one section of the forum where any subject, including non scientific ones, may be freely discussed.

That is called the Lounge.

 

 

[coffeesippin]

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes indeed it is.

But like most things in this world,

It needs to be taken in context.

And the context here is that ScienceForums is fundamentally a Scientific website.

So subjects such as General Philosophy, Religion etc need to be discussed from the point of view of of their relation to /  interaction with Science and from a scientific perspective.

Obviously purely philosophical material (in this case) will be also introduced but its link to Science needs to be there.

I would venture that a 'compare and contrast' type contribution to the discussion is perfectly legitimate.

Indeed I have seen a professional barrister member here do exactly that comparing the legal and scientific interpretations of evidence and proof.

 

There is one section of the forum where any subject, including non scientific ones, may be freely discussed.

That is called the Lounge.

    

 

     I put a topic in the Lounge, it was moved to Religion.   Mods have the authority and mechanism to decide what is what according to their own view and to enforce their view.  You might bring their opinion into the discussion.  However, a mod has already, in this thread, used an example of criminal law. 

     By the way, I edited my entry, and commented on Hooke's Law.

     Another edit/comment on Hooke's Law .. that 'Law' is a clear example of where 'hard' science goes wrong at the beginning of education .. the student, unless he and less likely she, is a farm person, or a son/daughter of a person employed in mechanics or engineering, is VERY unlikely to have ANY idea of the flaws in physical materials .. even in the IDEA of a flaws in physical materials .. so their foundation of education is sealed with that flaw .. which leads to HARD and UNREASONING Consensus .. instead of a soft consensus that includes the awareness that 'hey, we may not be right, maybe the lunatic with the new evidence is NOT lunatic.'

Edited December 5, 2018 by coffeesippin
Another Edit