Is there a difference between evidence and proof? If so, what's the difference?

Evidence suggests something is or might be true.
Proof confirms it.

Evidence is observation. Proof is confirmation. (Strictly speaking, though, 'proof' doesn't exist outside of mathematics and those adorable word games that philosophers play.)

Boru

I was under the impression that evidence is data - something measurable and concrete.  Proof is when you have enough scientific evidence to reach a conclusion - - a conclusion that will be replicated by others examining the same evidence.  

This is the reason that no book, story, or philosophy is able to prove the existence of god.  Book, story, and explanation all came out of somebody's brain, and has nothing measurable that is able to be replicated as proof for the existence of a deity.  In order to have proof of a deity, the deity will have to make an appearance and submit to scientific testing that will confirm it's abilities far exceed that of a human being.  And even when that happens, will we have met someone who has the ability to create galaxies - - - or just someone from another world?

Quote:Proof is when you have enough scientific evidence to reach a conclusion

Not exactly. 'Proved' has a someone different meaning in science that it does in philosophy. I think it was Asimov (I may be mistaken and can't be arsed to look it up) who said, ' "Proved" in the sciences can only mean that a proposition is established to such a high degree of confidence that to withhold provisional assent would be perverse.' Properly speaking, all scientific conclusions are provisional, never 'proved'.

Boru

(December 13, 2015 at 2:39 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Proof is when you have enough scientific evidence to reach a conclusion

Not exactly.  'Proved' has a someone different meaning in science that it does in philosophy.  I think it was Asimov (I may be mistaken and can't be arsed to look it up) who said, ' "Proved" in the sciences can only mean that a proposition is established to such a high degree of confidence that to withhold provisional assent would be perverse.'  Properly speaking, all scientific conclusions are provisional, never 'proved'.

Boru

Oh!  Thanks Boru.  Yes, that's a bit different.  Not being a scientist, I forget that scientists treat all "proof" as proof until better proof comes along.  
I honor that.  It's a constant quest for knowledge.

Yup, which is why it's often said that 'Science is made up of questions that need answers. Religion is made up of answers that must never be questioned.'

Boru

Proof is enough evidence to establish a proposition and its attended caveats to a specific threshold of probability.

For example in law "proof" means if you have evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" you can execute someone....whether that evidence is good or not.

(December 13, 2015 at 3:11 pm)Minimalist Wrote: For example in law "proof" means if you have evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" you can execute someone....whether that evidence is good or not.

Evidence can be worse if the person to be executed is black.