What is the difference between evidence, fact, and proof?

[joshua 1 9]

What is the difference between evidence, fact, and proof? Can we quantify evidence; is something more evident than something else? What does it take to convince a scientist, a scientific community, and the general public of the correctness of a scientific result in the era of very complicated experiments, big data, and weak signals?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the difference between evidence, fact, and proof?

I would say:

Consensus of evidence = fact.

Consensus of fact = proof.

Consensus of proof = consensus of evidence + consensus of fact.

 

[sahjimira]

Then there's truth. All those other things r subject to change

 

[faroukfarouk]

Then there's truth. All those other things r subject to change

Hi there, Ms. sahjimira; there is always the Truth as in John 14.6: the Way, the Truth and the Life.

 

[sahjimira]

Hi there, Ms. sahjimira; there is always the Truth as in John 14.6: the Way, the Truth and the Life.

 

[sahjimira]

Amen!

 

[whois]

What is the difference between evidence, fact, and proof? Can we quantify evidence; is something more evident than something else? What does it take to convince a scientist, a scientific community, and the general public of the correctness of a scientific result in the era of very complicated experiments, big data, and weak signals?

okay, in my opinion:
facts are immutable, 1+1=2 is a fact.

evidence is some kind of description, you see a car on the other side of an intersection with a stop sign, there are skid marks going across the intersection. these skid marks are evidence that this car did not stop at the stop sign. be advised that this evidence is not proof.

proof would be some kind of connection between the evidence and the facts of the matter.
showing the intermediate steps in an math equation would be proof.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then there's truth. All those other things r subject to change

Yes, indeed!

As they have many times, with such things as Thalidomide, L'Aquila, Phlogiston theory, Lamarckism, and many etc's.

And welcome to CF!

 

[AV1611VET]

okay, in my opinion:
facts are immutable, 1+1=2 is a fact.

I think the OP was referring to science.

And as far as I know, arithmetic is not a science.

 

[juvenissun]

What is the difference between evidence, fact, and proof? Can we quantify evidence; is something more evident than something else? What does it take to convince a scientist, a scientific community, and the general public of the correctness of a scientific result in the era of very complicated experiments, big data, and weak signals?

Evidence is usually not clear enough.
Fact is likely to mislead.
Any proof is destined to be a very narrow view of a big picture.

Without wisdom, none of the above would work.

 

[Zosimus]

There is no proof in science. Science is incapable of proving any theory right, even theoretically. Science may be able to prove theories wrong (theoretically), but whether it can do so as a practical matter remains in doubt.

 

[bhsmte]

Then there's truth. All those other things r subject to change

What truth? Can you demonstrate this truth?

 

[Loudmouth]

What is the difference between evidence, fact, and proof?

Facts are verifiable statements about the world around us.

Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a claim.

Proof is an absolute or axiomatic statement that is usually part of an epistemology. The most common examples are geometric proofs in mathematics. It is also the measure of alcohol content.

Can we quantify evidence; is something more evident than something else?

The more independent facts we have to support a claim, the more well supported it is.

What does it take to convince a scientist, a scientific community, and the general public of the correctness of a scientific result in the era of very complicated experiments, big data, and weak signals?

For scientists and the scientific community, it takes multiple sources of independent evidence in order for a theory to be taken seriously. When seemingly unrelated facts all lead to the same conclusion, it is considered to be a strong conclusion. As to the public, they are often swayed more by emotion than facts, as these threads demonstrate.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no proof in science. Science is incapable of proving any theory right, even theoretically. Science may be able to prove theories wrong (theoretically), but whether it can do so as a practical matter remains in doubt.

Then stop using the products that science has produced

 

[Zosimus]

Facts are verifiable statements about the world around us.

Can this statement be verified? If not, then do you agree that the statement is not a fact according to your own definition?

Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a claim.

So anything that disagrees with a claim is, by very definition, not evidence?

 

[Zosimus]

Then stop using the products that science has produced

Science has produced no products.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can this statement be verified?

Doesn't need to, since the definition of fact is an axiom. Whether or not you use the scientific method is up to you. For the majority of the human race, it appears to be a reliable method. Apparently, you decide whether to accept or deny the scientific method based on what it finds.

So anything that disagrees with a claim is, by very definition, not evidence?

Correct.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science has produced no products.

I should put that in my signature. It is a perfect example of just how dishonest you have to be in order to deny what science has done.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It is also the measure of alcohol content.

The higher the proof the less facts or evidence are considered necessary.

 

[Zosimus]

Doesn't need to, since the definition of fact is an axiom. Whether or not you use the scientific method is up to you. For the majority of the human race, it appears to be a reliable method. Apparently, you decide whether to accept or deny the scientific method based on what it finds.

I see. So you feel that you require neither evidence nor justification. The simple statement of an axiom is sufficient.

Axiom: The Bible is unconditionally true.

Now perhaps some may question the part where the Bible seems to indicate that Pi = 3. However, according to your own definition, since this does not agree with the assertion in question, it is not evidence. Accordingly, there can be no evidence against the Bible.

Find the nearest Christian, get on your knees, and accept Jesus as your savior because this is the only logical conclusion to your chain of logic.