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

[joshua 1 9]

I will just chalk this up to another claim you made, that you can not support with evidence.

ok chalk it up

 

[bhsmte]

ok chalk it up

I did and I am running out of chalk.

 

[Zosimus]

Why do you think that priniciple applies to the future? Because it has applied in the past?

Wait a minute – I said that we should not pretend to know things that we don't, and you said that you think I believe that because it has applied in the past?!

Seriously? Is that the best argument you can muster?

 

[Loudmouth]

Wait a minute – I said that we should not pretend to know things that we don't, and you said that you think I believe that because it has applied in the past?!

How do you know that you don't know things? It is the same contradiction that you speak of elsewhere.

Do you once again admit that you refuse to accept any evidence?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I did and I am running out of chalk.

Thats not all your running out of.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thats not all your running out of.

Is that yet another made up claim that you will refuse to back with evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

Is that yet another made up claim that you will refuse to back with evidence?

He is good at it, it appears to come naturally.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Is that yet another made up claim that you will refuse to back with evidence?

Are you a puppet for bhsmte now? You can not come up with your own material?

 

[bhsmte]

Are you a puppet for bhsmte now? You can not come up with your own material?

He is just pointing out the obvious, the low hanging fruit.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you a puppet for bhsmte now? You can not come up with your own material?

That would be deflection.

 

[Zosimus]

be

How do you know that you don't know things? It is the same contradiction that you speak of elsewhere.

Since knowledge is justified true belief, it would be either because I don't believe them or because I have no justification for doing so.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

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?

Oxford Dictionary Definitions:-
Evidence
The facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true.
Fact
Used to refer to a particular situation that exists.
A thing that is known to be true, especially when it can be proved.
Things that are true rather than things that have been invented.
Proof
Information, documents, etc. that show that something is true.
The process of testing whether something is true or a fact.

"is something more evident than something else?"
Of course. Example: It is evident that there is a force [gravity] that causes objects to fall to earth.
It is not so evident how the first life got started.

"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?"
In most cases, I would say a change in their worldview. In my experience, those who have decided that evolution provides the best explanation of how everything came to be are unlikely to change their minds in favour of special creation by God and those who believe in the Divine origin of life are unlikely to accept evolution as a reasonable alternative. There are some exceptions of course (Dr Gary Parker for instance, once taught evolution as a fact but now regards it as "the greatest lie I ever told.").

 

[lasthero]

evolution provides the best explanation of how everything came to be

That's not what evolution explains.

 

[Loudmouth]

In most cases, I would say a change in their worldview. In my experience, those who have decided that evolution provides the best explanation of how everything came to be are unlikely to change their minds in favour of special creation by God and those who believe in the Divine origin of life are unlikely to accept evolution as a reasonable alternative. There are some exceptions of course (Dr Gary Parker for instance, once taught evolution as a fact but now regards it as "the greatest lie I ever told.").

Those who think that verifiable evidence is important are unlikely to conclude that species came about by special creation. You are right that it does require a change in worldview where evidence no longer matters, and all that does matter is strict obedience to a holy book.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those who think that verifiable evidence is important are unlikely to conclude that species came about by special creation.

 

[Zosimus]

Those who think that verifiable evidence is important are unlikely to conclude that species came about by special creation. You are right that it does require a change in worldview where evidence no longer matters, and all that does matter is strict obedience to a holy book.

It's interesting that you would refer to "verifiable" evidence. However, I wonder what you mean by "verifiable" or even whether you've given good thought to how exactly something could be verified?

http://dieoff.org/page126.htm

Take as an example the sort of assertion for which reasonable people might simply accept as sufficient the answer 'I read it in The Times'; let us say the assertion 'The Prime Minister has decided to return to London several days ahead of schedule'. Now assume for a moment that somebody doubts this assertion, or feels the need to investigate its truth. What shall he do? If he has a friend in the Prime Minister's office, the simplest and most direct way would be to ring him up; and if this friend corroborates the message, then that is that.

In other words, the investigator will, if possible, try to check, or to examine, the asserted fact itself, rather than trace the source of the information. But according to the empiricist theory, the assertion 'I have read it in The Times' is merely a first step in a justification procedure consisting in tracing the ultimate source. What is the next step?

There are at least two next steps. One would be to reflect that 'I have read it in The Times' is also an assertion, and that we might ask 'What is the source of your knowledge that you read it in The Times and not, say, in a paper looking very similar to The Times?' The other is to ask The Times for the sources of its knowledge. The answer to the first question may be 'But we have only The Times on order and we always get it in the morning', which gives rise to a host of further questions about sources which we shall not pursue. The second question may elicit from the editor of The Times the answer: 'We had a telephone call from the Prime Minister's office.' Now according to the empiricist procedure, we should at this stage ask next: 'Who is the gentleman who received the telephone call?' and then get his observation report; but we should also have to ask that gentleman: 'What is the source of your knowledge that the voice you heard came from an official in the Prime Minister's office?', and so on.

There is a simple reason why this tedious sequence of questions never comes to a satisfactory conclusion. It is this. Every witness must always make ample use, in his report, of his knowledge of persons, places, things, linguistic usages, social conventions, and so on. He cannot rely merely upon his eyes or ears, especially if his report is to be of use in justifying any assertion worth justifying. But this fact must of course always raise new questions as to the sources of those elements of his knowledge which are not immediately observational.

This is why the programme of tracing back all knowledge to its ultimate source in observation is logically impossible to carry through: it leads to an infinite regress. (The doctrine that truth is manifest cuts off the regress. This is interesting because it may help to explain the attractiveness of that doctrine.)

 

[Loudmouth]

It's interesting that you would refer to "verifiable" evidence. However, I wonder what you mean by "verifiable" or even whether you've given good thought to how exactly something could be verified?

By verifiable I mean that you will get statistically similar results from the same experimental method and setup.

If I list a set of PCR primers, template DNA, and PCR conditions that led to a 1.5 kb PCR product, you should be able to exactly copy my protocol and produce a 1.5 kb PCR product. That is verifiable.

 

[Zosimus]

By verifiable I mean that you will get statistically similar results from the same experimental method and setup.

If I list a set of PCR primers, template DNA, and PCR conditions that led to a 1.5 kb PCR product, you should be able to exactly copy my protocol and produce a 1.5 kb PCR product. That is verifiable.

Accordingly, C14 dating is not verifiable evidence. The process involves taking the sample, burning it, passing the smoke through a sterile vacuum system, and then monitoring it for radioactive decay.

Obviously a sample can only be burned once.

 

[Loudmouth]

Accordingly, C14 dating is not verifiable evidence. The process involves taking the sample, burning it, passing the smoke through a sterile vacuum system, and then monitoring it for radioactive decay.

Obviously a sample can only be burned once.

Multiple samples from the same deposit can be used to verify the age of that deposit. Also, you can separate a single sample into many pieces that can be stored and checked later for 14C content.

 

[Zosimus]

Multiple samples from the same deposit can be used to verify the age of that deposit. Also, you can separate a single sample into many pieces that can be stored and checked later for 14C content.

Multiple samples are just that – multiple samples. You cannot verify the age for sample 1 by checking the age for sample 2. This is comparable to going into a room and checking the ages of the people therein by having one person ask each person his or her age and averaging out the ages to determine the age of those people in the room who were not asked.