Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Proof vs Evidence

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 2:58:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

I've always looked at "proof" as being in the realm of formal logic and "evidence" in the realm of informal logic. Perhaps just saying the same thing you already said just in different terms.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 7:24:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

Agreed and very few things are deductively discerned. But in every day speech the words are not so strictly used. 'Proof' in somecases is used as a synonym for 'evidence'. Personal experiance is also seen as proof. Like when someone says I'll prove to you this can happen. They don't make deductive arguments or mathimatical formulas, they either deonstrate themselves or find an historical recording of such event in question.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 7:28:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 2:58:46 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

I've always looked at "proof" as being in the realm of formal logic and "evidence" in the realm of informal logic. Perhaps just saying the same thing you already said just in different terms.

Formal and informal are not the same as deductive and inductive. Formal is more strctured and divorced from content. Formal or informal can both be applied to deductive or inductive or abductive argumentation or reasoning
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 7:43:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 7:28:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 2:58:46 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

I've always looked at "proof" as being in the realm of formal logic and "evidence" in the realm of informal logic. Perhaps just saying the same thing you already said just in different terms.

Formal and informal are not the same as deductive and inductive. Formal is more strctured and divorced from content. Formal or informal can both be applied to deductive or inductive or abductive argumentation or reasoning

I get they are not quite the same; however, formal arguments are largely deductive (and I've never seen informal "proofs"). The only inductive arguments I've seen in formal logic are inductive probabilities. I've not had a ton of logic classes and thus will not claim to be and expert. My observations on the types of arguments in these categories are simply that proofs are always deductive and can always be expressed in formal logic, while inductive reasoning is largely informal (with the exception of informal probabilities) and don't lend themselves to proofs. Now I may be totally wrong. As I've said, I've only had a few informal logic classes and only 1 formal.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 11:29:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let's say a man hates Tom Brady, the New England Patriots' quarterback. He promises to kill him publicly, and then during the Super Bowl manages to get onto the field in front of millions of people and slices his head off with a machete he smuggled in. It's on camera, there are millions of witnesses, the motive, means, and method of action are clear... Can we "prove" that the man killed Tom Brady? I think the answer is "no." There's simply an overwhelming amount of evidence to attest to it.

One can only prove something within a formal, abstract system of rules. I can prove that The New England Patriots are the NFL's 2014 Super Bowl champions, but I cannot prove that the Super Bowl was actually physically played this year. Perhaps it was an elaborate deception. Sorry Koopin :(
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:45:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 7:43:10 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/24/2015 7:28:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/24/2015 2:58:46 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

I've always looked at "proof" as being in the realm of formal logic and "evidence" in the realm of informal logic. Perhaps just saying the same thing you already said just in different terms.

Formal and informal are not the same as deductive and inductive. Formal is more strctured and divorced from content. Formal or informal can both be applied to deductive or inductive or abductive argumentation or reasoning


I get they are not quite the same; however, formal arguments are largely deductive (and I've never seen informal "proofs"). The only inductive arguments I've seen in formal logic are inductive probabilities. I've not had a ton of logic classes and thus will not claim to be and expert. My observations on the types of arguments in these categories are simply that proofs are always deductive and can always be expressed in formal logic, while inductive reasoning is largely informal (with the exception of informal probabilities) and don't lend themselves to proofs. Now I may be totally wrong. As I've said, I've only had a few informal logic classes and only 1 formal.

Proof by inductions is a pretty common method in mathematics. Generally it involves showing a relation holds for n (in the case of a series with n in the set of all integers) and also holds for n+1, regardless of n.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 4:07:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

You are speaking of 'logical proof". Logical proofs may be valid, but not yield a statement congruent with reality, may not be true. Rules of logic apply, but as soon as you step out of the logic classroom, all bets are off.
There is also 'mathematical proof'. Mathematical proofs are true by definition.
There is no 'scientific proof'.

In philosophy, and in daily life, we all seek proof.
Sometimes we seek proof to convince others, sometimes to convince ourselves.
In this world 'proof' is anything that convinces the mind.
One of the strongest proofs to the individual, to convince his own mind, is anecdotal. Not just any anecdotal evidence of course, but of the nature 'It happened to me, I know it is true.'
This may or may not convince others.
Sacred texts can be proof, it you have the right audience.

Evidence is that which contributes to proof, regardless of the classroom/situation.
In some settings (science classes, courts of law, formal debates) evidence has strict guidelines, in other cases, not so much.
JMO
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 7:56:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

For me proof is in the pudding, evidence can be forged.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 8:17:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To me, proof is the process of deriving your final conclusion from your premises.

Evidence refers to facts and figures that supports your premises or your conclusion or whatever.

This would be proof:
(No offence to those who do believe in the global warming hoax. I'm not really arguing that you're fruitcakes, just demonstrating what I think proof and evidence are.)
All people who believe global warming is a hoax are fruitcakes.
Joe Bloggs believes global warming is a hoax.
Therefore, Joe Bloggs is a fruitcake.

This would be evidence:
A study shows that 80% of people who think global warming is a hoax display most attributes of a fruitcake.
Joe Bloggs went into a fruitcake detection machine and a positive result was returned.

I got this idea because I've always assumed that proof is like the Chinese word 'lunzheng' and evidence is 'lunju'. Correct me if I'm wrong. ;)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 9:43:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 4:07:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

You are speaking of 'logical proof". Logical proofs may be valid, but not yield a statement congruent with reality, may not be true. Rules of logic apply, but as soon as you step out of the logic classroom, all bets are off.
There is also 'mathematical proof'. Mathematical proofs are true by definition.
There is no 'scientific proof'.

In philosophy, and in daily life, we all seek proof.
Sometimes we seek proof to convince others, sometimes to convince ourselves.
In this world 'proof' is anything that convinces the mind.
One of the strongest proofs to the individual, to convince his own mind, is anecdotal. Not just any anecdotal evidence of course, but of the nature 'It happened to me, I know it is true.'
This may or may not convince others.
Sacred texts can be proof, it you have the right audience.

Evidence is that which contributes to proof, regardless of the classroom/situation.
In some settings (science classes, courts of law, formal debates) evidence has strict guidelines, in other cases, not so much.
JMO

It's not just a religious text. If a perceived authority that is trusted says something, it must conflict with another perceived authority that is trusted before people will question whatever or whoever it is.

I also find that "proof" is often used as an undefined, unreachable target for some people who are dead set against accepting whatever it is they are dead set against believing.

Sometimes they mistakenly use the term "evidence" instead, and that's easier to shoot down because even lawyers defending the person in the wrong get to present evidence for their case.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 10:25:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

I'd agree for sure with the proof definition
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 4:09:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

Proof requires total certainty. In order to prove that statement X is true, one must demonstrate that denying it necessarily leads to logical contradictions. On the other hand, evidence amounts to confirmation, or data that is consistent with a given hypothesis. Obviously, evidence and proof are very different. Saying that proof is evidence is technically incorrect, since evidence does not imply total certainty.
derekbaxter
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 7:10:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

Yes, but proof is still dependent on the subjective and biases. Proof is whatever the majority or chosen few decide it is with government. Proof can always be argued and never absolutely proven.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2015 11:12:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

I've always thought that the simplest way to explain/define the terms is:
Evidence is that which supports a conclusion, proof is that which produces one.

An excessive call log between my wife and her boss is evidence of an affair, but it alone is not proof. The same is true about hearing from her co-workers that they are involved, or finding a bill paid for a local hotel on a night when she said she was out of town on a business trip. Any of these things alone is evidence as they support the conclusion but on their own do not produce one. Put them together and most would conclude that they are having an affair, making it proof. Now if I came home early one day and walked in on them... Nothing else needed, that alone is proof.

As far as what is necessary to qualify as proof or evidence... that is a different conversation. We can argue the logical validity of one form of evidence compared to another but the simple fact of the matter is that what convinces one of the truth of something will always be proof to them.
jonjojr
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 2:35:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
That's because evidence is not an autonomous word.

You can't say "I have evidence that your bike is red" and be conclusive. The word needs a supporting cast in order to become valid. While the word proof is inclusive, it is a self contained word with a beginning and an end. "I have proof, that your bike is red"

Evidence is a collection of facts that lead to proof, while proof is the fact that makes the evidence valid.
That is why not all evidence is proof.

I don't think you understand "informal logic" fully. When you have evidence that means that you have a logical sequence of facts, correct? Why would you call evidence informal logic, if formal logic is " concerned with the forms that yield or guarantee valid inferences from a premise or premises to a conclusion." In other words, facts.

Evidence is still formal logic, the only problem with evidence is that it is not self supporting until you have a fact that can "guarantee valid inferences"

So to answer your question:

Evidence: is a collection of facts.
Proof: is evidence that has been tested as either True or False.

I'm not an expert, but that is the way I approach these two words.

At 2/24/2015 2:58:46 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

I've always looked at "proof" as being in the realm of formal logic and "evidence" in the realm of informal logic. Perhaps just saying the same thing you already said just in different terms.
" I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it. "
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2015 7:42:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 2:07:39 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What definitions do you use for proof and evidence?
In my philosophy class (and previous ones I have taken) something is proof if it is deductively sound. Something is evidence if it is just a sound argument. This means that proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Is this the definition you use?

- In our Philosophy 'Evidence' is one of the three categories of 'Proof' (Bayyinah):

1. Burhan: Deductive Proof. Such as: Syllogism.

2. Hujja: Direct Proof. Such as: Direct Evidence: I saw it, therefore it is.

3. Dalil: Evidence.

>>> Well, it's more nuanced than that, but that's the basic idea.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.