Jump to content

Evidence and Proof....there is a difference.


Recommended Posts

In order for us to capitalize¬† ūüėŹ¬†Oops! ....gain from the knowledge we collect, we must first determine what IS knowledge vs what is mere words and documentation.

Key to recognizing what is knowledge is knowing the difference between EVIDENCE and PROOF.

Evidence is just facts/data that support an assertion.

Proof...on the other hand...is evidence that not only support it but eliminates all legitimate/reasonable doubt of it being true.

 

For example......

One could assert that violent crime is higher in St. Louis than it is in Cincinnati.
Siting statistics found online and in law enforcement and crime data books is EVIDENCE of this, but it's not PROOF of this because the stats and documentation could be forged and fabricated.
However GOING to both St. Louis and Cincinnati on a fact-finding mission and traveling around for an extensive period of time engaging in activities like riding around with cops as well as kicking it with gangs and street people for an eye witness account will give you PROOF of which one has the highest violent crime rate!
 

 


Also, while TRUTH is objective......PROOF more subjective.
Proof for one person may not be proof for another, based on experience, education on the subject, skepticism, etc.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
 
Something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign.

Law: Data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Proof is the evidence sufficient enough to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

When an individual makes a claim, they need to offer proof by presenting evidence.  If they cannot, the claim cannot be believed. 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with that definition.

If evidence was the same as proof, then why are so many people found NOT GUILTY even when mere "evidence" is presented against them?

Infact, some "evidence" is thrown out by the judge for various reasons.
Going by that definition, the judge is wrong because he threw out "proof".

I believe evidence are things that SUPPORT and HELP to establish proof.....but it's not necessarily proof itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

 

 


 

Quote

 


Proof is the evidence sufficient enough to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
 


 

 


One line says Evidence IS Proof
Another line says evidence has to be "sufficient enough" before it IS Proof.
Somewhat contradictory.

Different dictionaries can have different definitions for the very same word.
Websters dictionary defines evidence as that which SUPPORTS or FURNISHES proof....but it doesn't necessarily equal truth.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Another line says evidence has to be "sufficient enough" before it IS Proof.

Pardon the interruption but it says proof is the evidence sufficient enough to establish a thing is true...ūüėé

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess he ignores the actual definition: 

Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Meaning that is not 100% acceptable in all instances. It's amazing what one can figure out when they can read and actually comprehend the words.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence and proof are interchangeable. and both come in degrees. In a court room, they can either be overwhelming or adequate. A judge or jury decides whether there is reasonable doubt.¬† In pioneer's world¬† whatever he says, goes.¬†ūü§£ ¬†

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Del StrachenBut the intrinsic meaning of the words are the same.  It's  only when they  are put in the context of a sentence do they become qualified.  "Guilty" or "not guilty" is the verdict, not "proof".  it's about semantics.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Delano said:

The verdict proves the evidence, or not.

@Delanowhen the court clerk reads the verdict, he or she doesn't say "proof", for the simple reason that this word has to be elaborated upon and put in context.  The same with "evidence" which is its synonym. 

2 hours ago, Delano said:

Without context meaning is elusive.

That's what i am contending, but what you are blurring.  You frequently pull things out of the air and assume people know where you're coming from but they don't because you haven't put things in context. You have to be nudged to do this.             

 

Language is a tool that attempts to encapsulate reality and translate it into information that will hopefully be comprehended. But it is a very subjective method and therein lies the problem, and why communication frequently gets lost in the process.

 

All of this is one reason why  journalists will briefly recap the story they are reporting, so readers or listeners will know what they're talking about. 

 

Another semantic bind is that, in a court of law, a person found "not guilty" is not necessarily "innocent". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cynique said:

Another semantic bind is that, in a court of law, a person found "not guilty" is not necessarily "innocent". 

I don't believe innocence I'd ever mentioned. It's either guilty or not guilty.

 

It would be difficult to determine innocence since motivation is not easily ascertained 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Delano Lots of people are walking the streets because they beat the rap and were found "not guilty" of a crime they did commit. They are not "innocent", but benefitted from an effective defense. This is an example of how  loaded words are; semantics. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Cynique said:

@Delano Lots of people are walking the streets because they beat the rap and were found "not guilty" of a crime they did commit. They are not "innocent", but benefitted from an effective defense. This is an example of how  loaded words are; semantics. 

I agree that was the point I was trying to make. The smoking Gun is evidence(noun), the proof is a process (verb). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Delano said:

I agree that was the point I was trying to make. The smoking Gun is evidence(noun), the proof is a process (verb). 

But "proof" is not a verb.  "Evidence" and "proof" are both nouns that had to be modified with adjectives within a sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Cynique said:

But "proof" is not a verb.  "Evidence" and "proof" are both nouns that had to be modified with adjectives within a sentence.

Proof is also a verb and adjective


Oxford English Dictionary
https://www.oed.com/oed2/00190047

 

B. Signification. I. From prove v. in the sense of making good, or showing to be true.


1. a. That which makes good or proves a statement; evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or produce belief in the certainty of something. †to make proof: to have weight as evidence (obs.).

b. Law. (generally) Evidence such as determines the judgement of a tribunal. Also spec.

2. The action, process, or fact of proving, or establishing the truth of, a statement; the action of evidence in convincing the mind; demonstration.

 

 

II. From prove v. in the sense of trying or testing.


4. a. The action or an act of testing or making trial of anything, or the condition of being tried; test, trial, experiment; examination, probation; assay. Often in phrases to bring, put, set, etc. (something) in, on, to (the, †a) proof.

 

 

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

 

proof

2 of 3

adjective

1

: able to resist or repel

boots that were ‚Ķ¬†proof¬†against cold and wet‚ÄĒRobertson Davies

‚ÄĒoften used in combination

windproof

2

: used in proving or testing or as a standard of comparison

3

: of standard strength or quality or alcoholic content

 

b. Arith. An operation serving to test or check the correctness of an arithmetical calculation.

c. The aeration of dough by leaven before baking. Cf. prove v. 1g.

 

 

III. That which is produced as a test; a means or instrument for testing.

b. Photogr. A first or trial print taken from a plate; also used as equivalent to print 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the  proof , and hopefully it will be proof for you, and prove my argument.


 

proof

1 of 3

noun

 
1
a
: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b
: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2
obsolete : EXPERIENCE
3
: something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4
archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried
especially : unyielding hardness
5
: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
6
a
pluralproofs or proof : a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction
b
: a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph
c
: a coin that is struck from a highly polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation
d
: a test photographic print made from a negative
7
: a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
8
a
: the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit
b
: strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit
specifically : alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present
whiskey of 90 proof is 45 percent alcohol

proof

2 of 3

adjective

1
: able to resist or repel
boots that were ‚Ķ¬†proof¬†against cold and wet‚ÄĒRobertson Davies
 
‚ÄĒoften used in combination
windproof
2
: used in proving or testing or as a standard of comparison
3
: of standard strength or quality or alcoholic content

proof

3 of 3

verb

proofed; proofing; proofs

transitive verb

1
a
: to make or take a proof or test of
b
: PROOFREAD
2
: to give a resistant quality to
3
: to activate (yeast) by mixing with water and sometimes sugar or milk
proofer noun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well when paired with its binary twin "evidence", "proof" is a noun. The contention is that "evidence" and "proof" are not the same. not "evidence" and "prove".  

We have to disagree because i maintain these 2 words are interchangeable and that they define each other.  Can you come up with a better synonym for  "evidence"? ( A word, not a phrase or sentence.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The easiest thing would be to use the word in a sentence.

 

¬†The adjective and verbs are different meanings of the word ‚Äúproof‚ÄĚ

 

 we were talking about the definition below:

 

3 hours ago, Delano said:

evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact

 

Words can have multiple meanings, but we were shaking about a specific meaning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cynique said:

Well when paired with its binary twin "evidence", "proof" is a noun. The contention is that "evidence" and "proof" are not the same. not "evidence" and "prove".  

We have to disagree because i maintain these 2 words are interchangeable and that they define each other.  Can you come up with a better synonym for  "evidence"? ( A word, not a phrase or sentence.) 

Presentation. You can present evidence but it is not proof unless it is given some thought. And I would say that thinking is a verb not a noun.

Being shown evidence is passive for the receiver. The receiver has to do actively think about it before it is accepted. For example you can present evidence to Pioneer, but unless he accepts it as valid it is not proof of your argument. However you have your own definition of proof. And no amount of evidence even standard definitions of the word from my two favourite dictionaries proves my assertion. @Cynique

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain how evidence is a proof unless it is self evident. In which case it is already a proof. 

 

A geometric proof involves writing reasoned, logical explanations that use definitions, axioms, postulates, and previously proved theorems to arrive at a conclusion about a geometric statement. A good proof has an argument that is clearly developed with each step supported by:

  • Theorems: statements that can be proved to be true
  • Postulates: statements that are assumed to be true without proof (for example, an angle has only one bisector)
  • Axioms:¬†self-evident truths or the basic facts that are accepted without any proof (for example, a straight¬†line¬†can be drawn between any two points)

Proofs are commonly written in two columns, where the statements are listed in one column and the reasons for each statement's truth are listed in another column.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Delano i have twice made reference to semantics during the course of this discussion because semantics figures into why we are disagreeing. Here is what I consider an appropriate definition of the word semantics, one that will offer some insight into our being at odds. 

 

"Semantics is the study of the relationship between words and how we draw meaning from those words. People can absolutely interpret words differently and draw different meanings from them."

 

Language is fluid and is not an exact science. It is actually more akin to art. To me, a claim  has to be proven before it can be defined as evidence.  Once the claim is proven true after it has been made, it then become evidence and, as such, is synonymous with the word "proof", making them interchangeable. These 2 words, are what they are.  And, of course, the more proof presented, the stronger the evidence.   That's how my mind works.  Yours works differently. So be it.

 

Google the word semantics for a longer more detailed definition.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

2 hours ago, Cynique said:

me, a claim  has to be proven before it can be defined as evidence

I am not arguing semantics which is why I posted the definitions. 

 

For me it is not the same to say.

 

You can have evidence. 

It can be evident

 

You can have proof 

It can be proven.

It proves the point 

 

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/evidence_1

 

 

[uncountable] the information that is used in court to try to prove something. 

 

to prove or show something; to be evidence of something

 

So you are correct that evidence can be used interchangeably based on the definitions.

 

However one definition of evidence is not the same as proof. 

 

Our point of difference is that definitions is a subset of semantics. Semantics is the meaning of words and phrases.

 

A word does have a different definition versus usage in a phtase 

 

I was going to say sentence but it is not the same as a phrase. 

 

I thought you .were wrong, I should have known better. However I have learnt something today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting back and forth between Delano and Cynique.
I was actually rooting for Delano as his position was closest to mine on what was "evidence" and what constituted "proof"....then he essentially capitulated and decided to shake hands with her.

Nothing but a cream puff....lol.


Like Troy said, words have multiple meanings.
Many definitions for the same word.
The disagreements among us seem to largely be over WHICH definitions we choose to put weight on.

As I've said multiple times and Delano earlier concurred....PROOF is subjective and highly dependent on the acceptance of the person you're trying to convince.


It doesn't matter how much "evidence" you present....if the Jury doesn't accept it....then it's not PROOF (not to them atleast).


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

proof"....then he essentially capitulated and decided to shake hands with her.

I acknowledged her position was correct, she also identified our point of difference.

 

In the process I learned something about language and myself. So in my way of thinking that is a gain. You see admitting an error as a loss.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

As I've said multiple times and Delano earlier concurred....PROOF is subjective and highly dependent on the acceptance of the person you're trying to convin

Proof is not subjective. Fingerprints,  DNA,  911 recordings, security camera images, coroner's reports  are objective,  Reasonable doubt enters the picture when juries bring a human element to the proceedings, inadvertantly identifying or empathizing with the defendant. Or, if there isn't enough proof.  Evidence and proof are legal terms.  Outside the courtroom, if it's all about "he said/she said" and unreliable eye witness reports, then forget about a resolution.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Cynique said:

Proof is not subjective. Fingerprints,  DNA,  911 recordings, security camera images, coroner's reports  are objective,  Reasonable doubt enters the picture when juries bring a human element to the proceedings, inadvertantly identifying or empathizing with the defendant. Or, if there isn't enough proof.  Evidence and proof are legal terms.  Outside the courtroom, if it's all about "he said/she said" and unreliable eye witness reports, then forget about a resolution.  


Fingerprints, DNA, 911 calls, security camera images, etc.....ARE objective as you say.
But they aren't necessarily proof in and of themselves but evidence.

A lawyer can present all of these and the defendant STILL be found not guilty!

They only become proof when they are BELIEVED enough to cause one to believe in person is guilty.

You say the evidence and proof are legal terms but that's only PART of the picture.
As has been mentioned before, both evidence and proof have MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS and just because ONE of their definitions is of a legal nature, doesn't mean all of them are.  Both evidence and proof are frequently used words OUTSIDE of a legal context and have different qualifiers for both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Troy said:


being willing to acknowledge that you learned something is not a sign of being soft, but one of strength.

@TroyYes, this calls for being a person of good character, something a narcissist like pioneer knows nothing about.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good character also involves being FAIR and HONEST

When you pretend to disagree with something simply for the sake of disagreement and/or maliciousness....you are in no moral position to lecture anyone on "good character".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

When you pretend to disagree with something simply for the sake of disagreement and/or maliciousness....you are in no moral position to lecture anyone on "good character".

Again your inflated ego surfaces and motivates you to think that i am "pretending" not to agree with what you said. Not true.  Everything you stated,was debatable as far as i'm concerned.  If that wasn't my position, i would've never entered this discussion. Again i say it's all about semantics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

But how many blockheads are being snatched up, eaten, shitted out, and forgotten about??

You are comparing a delicious food with a useless person. Par for your course. You may want to save up an buy a vowel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Cynique said:

Again your inflated ego surfaces and motivates you to think that i am "pretending" not to agree with what you said. Not true.  Everything you stated,was debatable as far as i'm concerned.  If that wasn't my position, i would've never entered this discussion. Again i say it's all about semantics. 

 


I guess we gotta go back to middle school.............



YOU SAID, and I quote:


"Fingerprints,  DNA,  911 recordings, security camera images, coroner's reports  are objective,....."

 

 

As a response I SAID, and I quote:

"
Fingerprints, DNA, 911 calls, security camera images, etc.....ARE objective as you say."

 


I actually AGREED with you about what constitutes as evidence, but being the contrarian you are...in the very next post you turned around and said:

 

 

 

 

 

image.png.f8c3d1c5e53f64b908bac94887ce96f0.png

"@Pioneer1i don't agree with anything you've said, and it's pointless....".

 

 

So you didn't agree with ANYTHING I said, even my statements that echo your own!

Just disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pioneer1 said:

I actually AGREED with you about what constitutes as evidence, but being the contrarian you are....you turned around and said:

Ooooh puleese. You were not totally agreeing with what i said about DNA, fingerprints,etc, because you proceeded to put your spin on what I said in an attempt to discredit it,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cynique

 


You were not totally agreeing with what i said about DNA, fingerprints,etc, because you


No one IN here "totally" agrees with eachother or we'd all be quoting eachother's posts.
It's not about TOTAL agreement, it's about acknowledgement where we DO agree and mutual respect and understanding where we don't.

.....which is why I was so disappointed when Del all but capitulated to your badgering and down right bullying.

You found a soft target.

You wore the poor man down and he got tired and gave up and decided to agree with you, shake hands, and go home....lol.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

No one IN here "totally" agrees with eachother or we'd all be quoting eachother's posts.
It's not about TOTAL agreement, it's about acknowledgement where we DO agree and mutual respect and understanding where we don't.

.....which is why I was so disappointed when Del all but capitulated to your badgering and down right bullying.

You found a soft target.

You wore the poor man down and he got tired and gave up and decided to agree with you, shake hands, and go home....lol.

 

@Pioneer1What a slippery eel you are, always switching gears,  creating scenarios that cast you as a mental giant. Not. I  explained that my stance was based on how I think, and I acknowledged that Del's thought processes were different from mine, something I accepted with a "so be it",  and he and I resolved our differences like civilized people.  But you were choppin' at the bit, ready to butt in and discredit Del before attempting to make yourself look good by presenting the specious arguments that would foil me. Now you're ruminating with frustration because Del and i have moved  on, leaving you to stew in your own juices  The more you whine, the better Del looks because he realized that the concept of semantics  accepts that there are 2 sides to every question, depending on how you interpret language, - something that seems to have gone over your head because you are so immersed in your infallibility. tsk-tsk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cynique


because he realized that the concept of semantics  accepts that there are 2 sides to every question, depending on how you interpret language, 

This has nothing to do with semantics or "interpreting language"....the disagreements simply came from us focusing on alternate definitions for the same words.

As has been known by me and pointed out earlier, both "evidence" and "proof" have MULTIPLE definitions and mean different things in different settings.
You two either failed to acknowledge this or simply ignored this fact for egotistical reasons to "one up" the other, but it got a little too heated for your boy....and he bowed out, lol.
The cream puff melted...lol.

image.png.6a98390cb3a3c7fc6a04b30149d27e72.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:


This has nothing to do with semantics or "interpreting language"....the disagreements simply came from us focusing on alternate definitions for the same words.

As has been known by me and pointed out earlier, both "evidence" and "proof" have MULTIPLE definitions and mean different things in different settings

@Pioneer1That's not true. Speak for yourself. For instance. what are the other meanings  of evidence?  What is the the first synonym listed for it?

Also i emphasized that  I am talking about the intrinsic value of the 2 nouns "proof" and "evidence" when they  stand alone,  

Once again, like the strawman that you are. you have restated the case so you can supply your own answer. And you're judging the exchange between Del and me by the way you interact with us. 

 

As for Del, unlike you, he's secure enough in his manhood, to concede a point.   

Link to comment
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...