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

[Zosimus]

I'ld say this:
- fact: a piece of data, an observation
- evidence: a fact or set of facts that support a certain idea / hypothesis / theory
- proof: a fact or set of facts that prove a certain idea / hypothesis / theory

More bad definitions. If a fact is an observation, that means that anything that cannot be observed is not a fact.
Additionally it's a not "a piece of data" it's a datum. Data is the plural of datum. Didn't you take Latin in school?
If evidence is "a...set of facts that support a certain idea / hypothesis / theory" then that means that there can never be evidence against a theory.
Proof is impossible outside of mathematics. Mathematics does not require facts to prove things. Math proceeds from postulates.

 

[Zosimus]

I'ld like to see you build a computer without the science of electro-magnetism.
I'ld like to see you build an airplane without the science of aero-dynamics.
I'ld like to see you build a nuclear power plant without using the science of atomic theory.

I'd like to see you become a lawyer without the science of law.
I'd like to see you make a horoscope without the science of astrology.

I'd like to see your computer run without the electricity that Thor, God of Lightning, has provided for you.

 

[Zosimus]

Just like they produced the computer on my lap, without the theories of quantum mechanics and electromagnetism lending them a hand.

Do you ever provide evidence for things or is simple blind faith assertion sufficient for you?

 

[Zosimus]

It was Zosimus that claimed that science isn't needed for any of these things.

That's why I challenged him to build a 21st century nuclear power plant, without using the scientific theory of atoms.

I challenge you to build a 21st-century nuclear power plant with or without the scientific theory of atoms. That ought to be worth a laugh.

 

[Zosimus]

Excuse me sunshine, but no computer could have been built had scientists not have developed the theories upon which its operation depends.

The first computer was designed by Babbage. He was a mathematician, philosopher, and inventor. Before computers there were people who computed things and they were called... computers.

 

[Zosimus]

Maybe you should read the thread first.
Zosimus denies that science produces technology.

That's the point.

You can't build a computer without science.
You can't build a nuke or nuclear power plant without science.
You can't build an airplane without science.

For some reason, people started arguing against those obvious facts.

It's almost as if they are afraid of scientific inquiry. The horror, they might learn something!

First of all, you're completely wrong. If you go back to read the first post, it was not made by me. This is not my thread.
Second, technology is not made by science. Technology comes around thanks to capital investment.

 

[lesliedellow]

The first computer was designed by Babbage. He was a mathematician, philosopher, and inventor. Before computers there were people who computed things and they were called... computers.

Babbage couldn't get his difference engine to work, and he died before he could complete his analytical engine - which is also unlikely to have worked, given the degree of precision which would have been needed in the manufacture of its components.

 

[lesliedellow]

Do you ever provide evidence for things or is simple blind faith assertion sufficient for you?

For heaven sake, have you ever tried using a computer without putting electricity through it? You know, you have got Faraday to thank for the discovery of electromagnetic induction, Volta to thank for the invention of the battery, Bell Labs to thank for the invention of the transistor......

 

[AV1611VET]

For heaven sake, have you ever tried using a computer without putting electricity through it? You know, you have got Faraday to thank for the discovery of electromagnetic induction, Volta to thank for the invention of the battery, Bell Labs to thank for the invention of the transistor......

...... and Darwin to thank for the invention of evolution.

Notice here, where Solomon, who had apes imported (for study?):

1 Kings 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.

... concluded:

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Notice too, where Solomon refers to prescience evolution as an "invention" -- not a discovery?

Paul calls it a "fable" and an "endless genealogy":

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

 

[Goonie]

I know I put this up in another thread but still appropriate.

 

[Zosimus]

Babbage couldn't get his difference engine to work, and he died before he could complete his analytical engine - which is also unlikely to have worked, given the degree of precision which would have been needed in the manufacture of its components.

http://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/modernsequel/

"In 1985 the Science Museum in London set out to construct a working Difference Engine No. 2 built faithfully to Babbage's original designs dating from 1847-9....

"Modern manufacturing methods were used but uncompromising care was taken to ensure that the precision achievable by Babbage was nowhere exceeded. Composition analysis on materials used by Babbage was carried out to ensure the best materials match....

"The completed machine works as Babbage intended....

"The project confirms Babbage's standing as a designer of formidable ingenuity. It also demonstrates that achievable precision was not a limiting consideration in Babbage's failures. It appears that the 19th century outcome had as much to do with politics, economics, and personalities, as with technology. We can say with some confidence that had Babbage built his engine, it would have worked."
----------------------
You know, Leslie... before you shoot your mouth off, you might want to use Google first. It could save you from some embarrassing moments.

 

[Zosimus]

For heaven sake, have you ever tried using a computer without putting electricity through it? You know, you have got Faraday to thank for the discovery of electromagnetic induction, Volta to thank for the invention of the battery, Bell Labs to thank for the invention of the transistor......

Relevance?

"Faraday was a devout Christian; his Sandemanian denomination was an offshoot of the Church of Scotland. Well after his marriage, he served as deacon and for two terms as an elder in the meeting house of his youth."

Let me guess. When someone who is a Christian and a scientist invents something, credit should go 100 percent to science and 0 percent to Christianity. Why? Because that's what suits you.

When a mathematician invents something, it's because he's secretly a scientist and math had nothing to do with it.

If a journalist invents a pen, that's because he's secretly a scientist and journalism had nothing to do with it.

Only God has better PR! Don't you know, all good things come from God, and all bad things come from Satan. It's a simple, elegant system.

 

[lesliedellow]

"Faraday was a devout Christian; his Sandemanian denomination was an offshoot of the Church of Scotland. Well after his marriage, he served as deacon and for two terms as an elder in the meeting house of his youth."[

Let me guess. When someone who is a Christian and a scientist invents something, credit should go 100 percent to science and 0 percent to Christianity. Why? Because that's what suits you.

What a bloody stupid remark. The person who made the discovery gets the credit. Nobel Prizes are awarded to people; not to abstract concepts.

 

[dysert]

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?

Fact is supported by
Proof, which is developed by
Evidence

For example, it's a fact that I have a bald head. This can be proven by someone inspecting my head. For those unable (or unwilling) to do so, I could post a picture of myself as evidence that this is true.

I think facts are true. Proof and evidence may be flawed (think bald wigs and photoshop).

 

[joshua 1 9]

I think facts are true. Proof and evidence may be flawed (think bald wigs and photoshop).

Even non photoshop photos can be misleading.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

My justification for using the scientific method is that it works.

Axiom: The Bible is unconditionally true.

How has that led to an accurate model of how nature works? How do you justify using that epistemology in studying nature?

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.

I already did that. It didn't work.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fact is supported by
Proof, which is developed by
Evidence

For example, it's a fact that I have a bald head. This can be proven by someone inspecting my head. For those unable (or unwilling) to do so, I could post a picture of myself as evidence that this is true.

I think facts are true. Proof and evidence may be flawed (think bald wigs and photoshop).

Zosimus thinks that being able to verify a claim with observation doesn't make something true, or even a reliable description of reality. That's the kind of denial that we are facing.

 

[dysert]

Zosimus thinks that being able to verify a claim with observation doesn't make something true, or even a reliable description of reality. That's the kind of denial that we are facing.

Maybe Zosimus is a subjective idealist who believes that the only thing real is his own consciousness?

 

[klatu]

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?

All experiments don't have to be complicated. An all too easy impression to get when the big ones get all the publicity. Yet the efficacy of the experiment, and the evidence obtained will be decided by how precisely the hypothesis has been defined. A loose definition here means a ambiguous result in the end!

By example take the search for an AIDs vaccine. To start with, proof of primary understanding must be searched for and discovered. What we are prepared to believe is only the starting point for a search. And the search is in the nature of an experiment. All experiments will have a result, but does that result effect the defined problem successfully enough to 'claim' a discovery? Such is the necessity of evidence derived from testing. And testing is like a trial, the claim is measured by it's ability to effect change from one state of reality to another and by the integrity, duration and sustainability of that change. Even then the scrutiny is not over. Once a claim of 'discovery' is made, and a description of the proposed 'fact' is made, others must reconfirm the test and the results. When that happens in sufficient numbers so that the new evidence can stand against doubt and defeat all contrary opinions, fact that can be trusted has been established. As knowledge is partial, that is to say our species remains on some indeterminate point of the the great learning curve, But for the moment and until something better is discovered again, that is where our minds must rest. To reject such demonstrable facts is the character of irrationality.

Yet the difficulties of such discovery should not be underestimated. Thirty years on, maybe thirty billions spend on research, a working vaccine to eradicate AIDs has yet to be found. If understanding the visible, material world has been fraught with such difficulties and limitations as science and history demonstrate; what does that suggest of mans competence to comprehend the invisible nature of a spiritual potential; of understanding God!

 

[Zosimus]

Zosimus thinks that being able to verify a claim with observation doesn't make something true, or even a reliable description of reality. That's the kind of denial that we are facing.

First of all, I consider your post a personal attack, and I don't appreciate it.

Second, your post is wrong.

What we have here is a claim that the past is a good guide to the future. How do we know that this is true?

Let's assume that we have a person who assures us that real estate values will go up this year. Why? Because they went up last year. Now perhaps you doubt that this is true. Perhaps you challenge the person about this claim. To respond to your challenge he says, "Look. Real estate values went up two years ago. I then predicted that they would go up again at the beginning of last year. As you can clearly see, they did. Therefore, it is indisputable that real estate values will go up this year."

Well, if you want to invest your money based on this simplistic logic, then go right ahead. I remain skeptical. I doubt that there is a logical basis for claiming that the past is a good guide to the future. Now I don't care how many times that real estate salesman verifies the claim that real estate really, really, really went up last year. That's because whether real estate went up is completely irrelevant. The question is whether past performance is a reliable guide to future returns. Anyone who has bought a mutual fund and has actually read the portfolio will see that the very fund managers assure you that it is not a guarantee of future returns. That's because they have smart lawyers.