@Pioneer1 you have my head spinning, yo. In another discussion initiated by @Delanoreferencing Randomness, he shared a response from ChatGPT that says, 'IS anything random or are things so complex that the order isn't apparent?'.
Are Proof and Evidence too complex to truly determine fact (I would argue, yes, in some cases), or are they random conclusions based on insufficient data? Do we lean on subconscious habits and/or conscious choices to resolve our position of proof and evidence?
Using the definitions that you shared, how far do we dig to:
Show Proof (sufficient enough (who determines this) to establish that a thing is true, or produce belief in its truth). Is this then, Proof? hmmmm.
Does the Evidence (that which or tends to prove or disprove something(who determines this)). Is this, Evidence? Hmmm.
or are some things too complex that subjective random opinions interfere? hmmm, maybe in some cases
We've witnessed the impact of Proof and Evidence - conveniently. (in many cases)
In other words,
an apple is, in fact, and objectively an apple, (based on sufficient proof and evidence of what constitutes an apple)
statistics about, for example, why there is an increase in crime in my neighborhood, is too complex to be objective, insensitive to be subjective and too complex to be random. Thus, proof and evidence can result in false positives.
so, to address your topic, 'Evidence and Proof...there is a difference'. the difference depends on the intention and the ability to objectively conclude. But then again, how can we objectively conclude if these words are arbitrarily defined based on ones intentions?