Difference Between Evidence and Proof

[beecee]

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

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.

Funny how you are incessantly harping on your belief that at times science is wrong, when no one I can recall has ever said science is infallible, unlike other questionable disciplines. A scientific theory is formulated based on the preponderance of evidence that supports it...The scientific discipline and theories, unlike other questionable disciplines is never complete...That is the nature of science, and the quality that is admirable and lacking in other disciplines. But obviously as scientific theories continue to stand the tests thrown their way, they become more certain, yet never really proved beyond any shadow of doubt, as there is always room for improvement in the model.

Science does not deal in proof, only in what I detailed above. Here is an excellent answer to the question of evidence and proof......

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-evidence-and-proof

“Evidence” refers to a set of facts or information known to be true about something. For example, in a criminal lawsuit, a gun found at the crime scene would be considered evidence, along the fact that the gun belongs to the defendant, for the guilt of the defendant. The fact that the sea level has been rising at an average rate of 3.4mm per year since 1993 is evidence for climate change. While these may all be true facts, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence; even though the defendant’s gun was found on the crime scene, it could have been stolen by someone else who actually committed the crime. Just because the sea level has been rising for over a decade does not guarantee the existence of man-made climate change. A lot of the time, evidence simply suggests (though very compellingly) the conclusions being offered.

On the other hand, a “proof,” in a mathematical or logical sense, is a set of truths that necessitate the conclusion. Given that the premises and facts are true, the conclusion must follow, no if’s, and’s, or but’s. It may not seem like it sometimes, but every mathematical proof is built by stacking logical blocks of truth on top of each other until the desired result is reached. There is no guessing or implying or leaps of faith in a proof, unlike when relying on scientific or legal evidence. I suppose proofs could be considered evidence as it is defined above, but not in the same sense that legal or scientific evidence is.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

This is why the fact that science does not deal in any supposed "proof" or "truth" rather it accepts that knowledge of the universe we inhabit is contained to what we are able to observe, but as those observations and the knowledge gained improve, so to does the science, the models and thankfully, the elimination of non scientific myth.

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by beecee

[studiot]

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

 

 

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

Quote

   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.

 

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

     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.'

Good, you are talking about something scientific.

Now if you would be so kind as to link your comments to the thread topic rather than sneering at the efforts of others (teachers of elementary science in this instance) we could move towards a proper discussion.

You never know, if you tried hard enough you might actually be able to support your case with evidence.

By the way, Hooke's Law was a simple something that came to mind as an example. I did imply you could choose your own.

Your scenario was not the one I had in mind, schoolboys are much more likely to measure tension or perhaps flexure, since compression experiments are much more difficult to handle and control and potentially more dangerous.

 

[coffeesippin]

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Good, you are talking about something scientific.

Now if you would be so kind as to link your comments to the thread topic rather than sneering at the efforts of others (teachers of elementary science in this instance) we could move towards a proper discussion.

You never know, if you tried hard enough you might actually be able to support your case with evidence.

By the way, Hooke's Law was a simple something that came to mind as an example. I did imply you could choose your own.

Your scenario was not the one I had in mind, schoolboys are much more likely to measure tension or perhaps flexure, since compression experiments are much more difficult to handle and control and potentially more dangerous.

 

Consider me a cranky old guy if you will, or merely someone who wants intelligent conversation in a peaceful, civilized environment; but I'm putting you on ignore for a while for your totally inappropriate "sneering at the efforts of others" remark, and your inability to differentiate between General Philosophy and Science.