Proof vs evidence

[Shushersbedamned]

What is the diffrence between proof and evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quantity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To expand. A fingerprint at a crime scene can tell you that a suspect was present. It is evidence It does not "prove" that the suspect did it. But if you add in motive, a murder weapon, the suspect's DNA on the murder weapon, you are well on your way to "prove" that the suspect is guilty. It is still conceivable that the suspect did not do it, but at this point it could be said that the burden of proof has been shifted to the suspect to come up with a reasonable alibi.

 

[David T]

Toss a rock once in the air and it falls that's evidence. Toss it a million times and that's proof.

Toss a rock after that and it doesn't fall but shoots into outer space then that is random or miracle. Take take your pick and now you have evidence that random or miracles is causality. I wonder how that debate world play out.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What is the diffrence between proof and evidence?

One applies to law, liquor and math.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Quantity.

Wrong. See, e.g., here and here.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Wrong.

I'm sure this will be the conclusion in the end but you could let them say their say...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. See, e.g., here and here.

Nope, you should have read the next post. Like many words there are different definitions of "proof".

 

[Polymath257]

What is the diffrence between proof and evidence?

Proof only really exists for math and alcohol.

Evidence can lead to levels of confidence, but the level is never a full 100%. It may well be 99.9999999%, but never 100%. The more evidence we accumulate, the better the confidence.

Now, most people will consider something proved if the confidence level is above 99.9999% (that's a 1 in a million chance of being wrong). This is a level that is readily achieved and is very common for making conclusions. Maybe, occasionally, in law, we want a 1 in 100 million chance of being wrong. In such cases, 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' is the standard.

In many areas of science, the uncertainty level is very, very, very low because we have made independent observations enough to get to such levels. So, the distance between the earth and the moon can be known to within inches to a confidence level that is MUCH higher than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in law. We can know of quantum or relativistic effects at this much higher level of confidence.

But, as stated, even a chance of being wrong that is 1 part in 10^200 is *still not zero* and so we still don't have *absolute* proof, even if the evidence is far, far beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sure this will be the conclusion in the end but you could let them say their say...

He made the error of using the mathematical definition of "proof" but there are other standards. Usually when people use the word "proof" their use is closer to the legal definition, which is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than the mathematical definition. Evidence is only used in the "proof" of a legal sort. Evidence does not apply to the mathematical definition at all. So by context, whether the OP realized it or not, he was using a definition of proof that was closer to the legal definition rather than the mathematical definition.

In a discussion one must pay attention to context.

 

[`mud]

There's no evidence of the existance of `Gods`, as there is no evidence of a `void`.
Neither can be proven nor displayed to anyone's eyes or ears, they are transparent.
Neither are in existance within the existance of the Cosmos, they have no aparrent boundries.
And once more we are presented with accepting the existance with absency of presense.
It's believing that when a big rock falls into a pond, and the ripples are all gone,
what is the proof that the rock fell into the pond at all, what evidence is left to proof it ?
At least, with the pond, one sees the big rock, but the evidence doesn't prove it fell there,
the ripples aren't there as proof any more, and we only have cause and effect, no ripples.
And, we can't still explain the inertia that got the rock there, evidence of existance,
but no proof of the momentum of the rock getting there, and we still can't determine the cause.
We have evidence without proof as to the cause, and..........
~
I'm getting nowhere with this.....
your turn...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Nope, you should have read the next post. Like many words there are different definitions of "proof".

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you don't know how language works. You should have told us.

Words have more than one definition. You did not use the definition implied by the context of the OP.

 

[WalterTrull]

Evidence is proof of evidence. Proof is only evident if proved. Isn't it fun to play with words?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence is proof of evidence. Proof is only evident if proved. Isn't it fun to play with words?

Just for fun I went to a dictionary. It gives the common usage of a word. Words are defined by usage, their meaning is not set in stone. At any rate here is the first definition of "proof" that I clicked on:

"noun

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence:What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:to put a thing to the proof."

the definition of proof

Oops, my bad. I forgot that very often the top article one sees on a Google search is the one that paid the most. Let's go to the next one on the list:

Definition of proof
: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2obsolete : experience
: something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness
: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
: a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction: a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph: 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: a test photographic print made from a negative
: a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
: 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

Definition of PROOF

Still not seeing the mathematical definition of "proof" that some seem to think that it is the only one.

Ooh Ooh! Here is a source that mentions both mathematical and formal proof:

Proof - Wikipedia

But they are second and third in the list The definition that I used was still the first on the list.

As I said words have different meanings. The response to a question should be based upon the meaning that the person asking a question used. I used the obvious definition used by the OP, or perhaps someone can show me how evidence is used in either a mathematical or formal proof.

By the context my first answer was correct.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is the diffrence between proof and evidence?

i.e.. I have proof (I can verify) that I have epilepsy. See! Here is the evidence (that supports/validates my statement). I'm taking seizure medication.

We use words so often, we dont really question the definitions. We know by context. A lot of it is easier to understand when put in a sentence.

Why make it so complicated.