Proof vs Evidence

[thaiboxerken]

In the "proof that superpowers exist" thread, someone took offense to another's post that said "prove it." At that point, this person informed that, in science, evidence and proof are two totally different concepts. I will agree that "in science" these are two different concepts.

However, this is a forum, not a science board or council. The vast majority of posters here use everyday english to communicate with each other. If some woo woo tells me that they have superpowers, and I say "prove it", I'm not actually waiting for a mathematical formula. I am just asking for evidence.

So, to those that want to continue nitpicking on a pointless point between "evidence" and "proof", I have this to say. Shut up.

[skeptigirl]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
In the "proof that superpowers exist" thread, someone took offense to another's post that said "prove it." At that point, this person informed that, in science, evidence and proof are two totally different concepts. I will agree that "in science" these are two different concepts.

However, this is a forum, not a science board or council. The vast majority of posters here use everyday english to communicate with each other. If some woo woo tells me that they have superpowers, and I say "prove it", I'm not actually waiting for a mathematical formula. I am just asking for evidence.

So, to those that want to continue nitpicking on a pointless point between "evidence" and "proof", I have this to say. Shut up. Obviously this is about some particular interpersonal gripe that I know nothing about. But that has never stopped me from butting in before, so....

I deal with a field that never has research results that equate to 'proofs'. So I prefer the continuum of evidence over the terminology of proof.

Overwhelming evidence for or against.
Evidence suggesting for or against.
No evidence one way or the other.

Instead of "proove it" perhaps you might say support your claim, or provide convincing evidence. Your point was likely the same, but why waste time on semantics? Dismiss the semantics and move on to the question at hand.

Gawd I sound like my mother.:p

[Throg]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
In the "proof that superpowers exist" thread, someone took offense to another's post that said "prove it." At that point, this person informed that, in science, evidence and proof are two totally different concepts. I will agree that "in science" these are two different concepts.

However, this is a forum, not a science board or council. The vast majority of posters here use everyday english to communicate with each other. If some woo woo tells me that they have superpowers, and I say "prove it", I'm not actually waiting for a mathematical formula. I am just asking for evidence.

So, to those that want to continue nitpicking on a pointless point between "evidence" and "proof", I have this to say. Shut up.

The problem is that if you using everyday English, particularly with respect to words like "proof" is that if you can do it, everybody can. If you say "prove it" in an everyday English sense then you are really saying no more than "convince me" and every believer in the paranormal is quite justified in saying "it's already been proved" in an everyday English sense, meaning "I'm already convinced."

I would say this is a science site in the sense that the whole point of JREF is to apply scientific method to the investigation of paranormal claims.

[El_Spectre]

The problem is, if we use highly precise language, many people won't get it. If we use more common speech, then it can be corrupted.

Witness the knuckleheads who think "theory" means "guess", or even better "wild-ass fantasy I pulled outta my butt".

[H3LL]

We have a similar problem with the everyday use of "theory" and the scientific use of "theory".

In these forums I think it is important to be clear which "theory" you are using and the same with proof and evidence.

'Proof' is a particularly contentious word as is indicated by the phrase: "The exception proves the rule". The original meaning of prove was to test.

There is an amusing related passage in The Devils Dictionary:

EXCEPTION, n. A thing which takes the liberty to differ from other things of its class, as an honest man, a truthful woman, etc. "The exception proves the rule" is an expression constantly upon the lips of the ignorant, who parrot it from one another with never a thought of its absurdity. In the Latin, "_Exceptio probat regulam_" means that the exception _tests_ the rule, puts it to the proof, not _confirms_ it. The malefactor who drew the meaning from this excellent dictum and substituted a contrary one of his own exerted an evil power which appears to be immortal.

Source: THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY ((C)1911 Released April 15 1993)

BTW - You can get The Devils Dictionary free from Project Gutenberg (http://promo.net/pg/). A worthy addition to any PC. ;)

For me proof lies firmly within the boundaries of mathematics and I'm uncomfortable with its use outside that field. The word evidence works better in all other circumstances.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by H3LL
BTW - You can get The Devils Dictionary free from Project Gutenberg (http://promo.net/pg/). A worthy addition to any PC. ;)

I'd agree (of course, I quote Bierce in my .sig, so...)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
In the "proof that superpowers exist" thread, someone took offense to another's post that said "prove it." At that point, this person informed that, in science, evidence and proof are two totally different concepts. I will agree that "in science" these are two different concepts.

However, this is a forum, not a science board or council. The vast majority of posters here use everyday english to communicate with each other. If some woo woo tells me that they have superpowers, and I say "prove it", I'm not actually waiting for a mathematical formula. I am just asking for evidence.

So, to those that want to continue nitpicking on a pointless point between "evidence" and "proof", I have this to say. Shut up.

So much for your claim of ignoring my posts. :D

Look, even you agree that "in science these are two different concepts". Yes, that is the point. We are using SCIENCE, Ken, to understand the world as reliably as possible.

If you talk up science as the best thing since sliced bread, but then don't use scientific concepts (ie. you confuse proof with evidence), then expect to be corrected.

[Francois Tremblay]

Proof is sufficient evidence to hold something true. Simple. People who whine that "science can't prove anything" are trying to downgrade scientific truth for their own agendas.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by jzs
If you talk up science as the best thing since sliced bread, but then don't use scientific concepts (ie. you confuse proof with evidence), then expect to be corrected.

I agree. We should use language in a more appropriate way. After all, thats also the "skeptics way" ;)

[Ashles]

How about "demonstrate it"?

That's what we are generally asking - for someone to demonstrate the abilities they are claiming.

Although if someone created a big issue if you asked them to 'prove it' it is most likely a distraction smokescreen rather than a genuine grammatical correction. It would be obvious what was meant.

Interesting point by H3LL though. Technically 'prove' can actually mean test it. And testing it would hopefully imply testing in a proper scientific manner.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Ashles
How about "demonstrate it"?


I think believers in the paranormal would take it that their favourite practitioner of the paranormal has demonstrated their abilities (they have seen him/her do it, what more demonstration do you need?)

We are always going to come up against the problem that in ordinary everyday usage language is vague and imprecise. It's one of the reasons every field of knowledge comes up with it own jargon.

I think the best we can do is to be precise and consistent in our use of language and explain what we mean when asked.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Throg
If you say "prove it" in an everyday English sense then you are really saying no more than "convince me" and every believer in the paranormal is quite justified in saying "it's already been proved" in an everyday English sense, meaning "I'm already convinced."

Nicely stated.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Throg
I think believers in the paranormal would take it that their favourite practitioner of the paranormal has demonstrated their abilities (they have seen him/her do it, what more demonstration do you need?)
Ken was referring to the times a poster claims they themselves have an ability.
If some woo woo tells me that they have superpowers, and I say "prove it", I'm not actually waiting for a mathematical formula. I am just asking for evidence.
It wouldn't really fair to ask someone to "prove it" when they are talking about someone else's abilities.

But if a claimant starts complaining about the definition of "prove" then it is only a matter of a single clarification post to set them straight.

If there has ever been an example where a poster genuinely didn't understand what was meant and has then offered themselves for testing after the misunderstanding has been resolved I would be very interested to see it.

As has been discussed many times there are many ways claimaints try to confuse the issue of a paranormal claim. Someone with a genuine ability would sail through all of this with very little problem.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Ashles
Ken was referring to the times a poster claims they themselves have an ability.


In that particular context I agree that one would be quite entitled to ask for a demonstration. Of course, one would have to carefully specify what would and would not constitute a demonstration, as I understand is done in connection with the JREF challenge.

But if a claimant starts complaining about the definition of "prove" then it is only a matter of a single clarification post to set them straight

Well, with some claimants I suspect you would need considerably more than a single post but your general point is sound.

As has been discussed many times there are many ways claimaints try to confuse the issue of a paranormal claim

This is why we should do our best to avoid confusing the poor souls (figuratively speaking) any further by being imprecise or inconsistent in our use of language.

[Thomas]

I guess that I’m one of the debaters who triggered this thread, and in this regard I would like to clear up why this issue was raised in the first place.
As Ken pointed out, a poster was corrected for his use of the term “prove it�, in the middle of a debate, at that point I found it to be quite irrelevant, since we were debating with a person who is considered a woo, so I stated that proof and evidence is synonymous to try and make sure it wouldn’t become a big deal (these posters in question are know to generate absurd debates concerning rather irrelevant details).

However, that terms are synonymous doesn’t mean they have the same definition; I was of course fully aware of this issue, because it’s exactly the same in Denmark and all other countries I guess (and I do have a higher education, and understanding the point with a thesaurus, dictionary definitions etc. is elementary school stuff).

I think a number of posters totally misunderstood my point, and thought that I considered synonymous terms to be identical by their definition. This was a major misunderstanding, and it ignited some flaming from both sides.

I of course insisted that my claim was correct, because it actually is. The terms are synonymous.

This is for you Throg: I never said they held the same definition, but I did however say that the thesaurus defined proof as evidence. What I meant by this was simply, that the terms had to be considered most-related when the thesaurus defined one as the other, and furthermore equated both terms with a huge amount of other terms. That was my point, nothing more. I’m 99% sure you misunderstood this completely, and it was a fair misunderstanding, because I didn’t state this point very clearly in the heat of the battle, and furthermore, a couple of posters was constantly putting words in my mouth.

I’m fully aware, that they have quite different dictionary definitions, and I will not try to be a judge of how the terms should, or should not be used (since English isn’t my native language) but the reason I objected to the aggression against the poster who said “prove it�, were that it was fairly irrelevant at the present time, and quite off-topic.

This post became a little bit longer than expected, but I thought it was about time to state my point clearly, because the posters I debated this with resorted to patronizing and refused to read what I wrote correctly, in the end the guy had put so many words in my mouth, that other posters, including some of you here, began to believe that I had said things which I never had. Imagine a scenario where a number of posters begin to correct you for things you have never said, just because some guy is putting words in your mouth for his own benefit. It was quite absurd.
So thanks for making this thread Ken and giving me an opportunity to elaborate my point on neutral grounds.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Thomas
I think a number of posters totally misunderstood my point, and thought that I considered synonymous terms to be identical by their definition

You do keep using the word definition, though. Thesauri don't define in the same sense that dictionaries define things as has also been explained to you several times. The purpose of a thesaurus has been explained to you several times but you seem to ignore it. You also seem to be failing to recognise that the synonyms provided in a thesaurus are generally context-dependent and synonymous for only a limited sub-set of the ways in which a given word may be used. This is a crucial point.

I am guessing that you are using something like Thesaurus.com which erroneously uses the word "definition" in connection with a synonym. I find your "definition" of proof as "evidence" there. I also a "definitions" of proof as "print" at the same site. Did that not suggest to you that the word definition was being used incorrectly?

Neither is a definition. It is not your fault that sites like Thesaurus.com use the word definition incorrectly but they do. How many one-word definitions can you think of for anything?

This is for you Throg: I never said they held the same definition, but I did however say that the thesaurus defined proof as evidence

Yes you did and that too is wrong. But, really when you say that "proof" is defined as "evidence" what do you think you are saying?

What I meant by this was simply, that the terms had to be considered most-related when the thesaurus defined one as the other, and furthermore equated both terms with a huge amount of other terms. That was my point, nothing more. I’m 99% sure you misunderstood this completely, and it was a fair misunderstanding, because I didn’t state this point very clearly in the heat of the battle, and furthermore, a couple of posters was constantly putting words in my mouth

I'm fairly sure the problem came about because you kept using the word "defines" inappropriately. Quite understandable given that the thesaurus to which you referred used the word inappropriately.

[Thomas]

I may have misread your post, because it's quite late here. Anyway, I'll have to make it brief.

In a thesaurus, "definition" means "closest synonym/best match". That's it.

I think you mistake it for a dictionary version of definition, and that's the crux of the problem here.

That they use the term "definition" in a thesaurus is not "an error in the book"(heh), it just means "best match" in that context.

Argument to reasoning, case to court matter, proof to evidence(1), proof to print(2), clue to hint, table to furniture and so forth. It's not an error in the book, you just mistake the "thesaurus definition" with a "dictionary definition". It's two very seperated matters.

I'm off to bed now, stay cozy.

Edited to add: Remember we were debating wether proof were synonymous with evidence. That was the issue, nothing else. My pointing out that the thesaurus defined proof as evidence were merely making a point: That not only were they synonymous, but they were also the best match.

If I talked about a "dictionary definition", I explicitly said so, otherwise I just used the word "definition", because we were debating synonyms.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Thomas

As Ken pointed out, a poster was corrected for his use of the term “prove it�, in the middle of a debate, at that point I found it to be quite irrelevant,


I doubt that, since you continue to go on and on about it. But continue


since we were debating with a person who is considered a woo,


Ah yes, that silly 'discredit at all costs' angle.

Ken can say "Shut up." and not be called a woo? Amazing (not really).


However, that terms are synonymous doesn’t mean they have the same definition;


Forget dictionaries, if you can. Asking for proof is incorrect, as science does not deal with proof, but evidence.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by jzs


I doubt that, since you continue to go on and on about it. But continue

You specifically said that proof wasn't synonymous with evidence, and you still haven't admitted it was wrong. Now, is proof synonymous with evidence or not?

Ah yes, that silly 'discredit at all costs' angle.

You're pulling things out of context, I wasn't talking about you, try again. I don't know if you're a woo, I haven't read anything from your pen, to which I can conclude that you're a woo. Well, who do you think I was talking about?


Forget dictionaries, if you can. Asking for proof is incorrect, as science does not deal with proof, but evidence.

No need to forget about dictionaries, we were talking about synonyms, for that you need a thesaurus, not a dictionary. I can't see why that can be so hard to understand.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Thomas
You specifically said that proof wasn't synonymous with evidence, and you still haven't admitted it was wrong. Now, is proof synonymous with evidence or not?


If you want to play science, asking for proof is incorrect, regardless of what a thesaurus or dictionary say.


You're pulling things out of context, I wasn't talking about you, try again. I don't know if you're a woo, I haven't read anything from your pen, to which I can conclude that you're a woo. Well, who do you think I was talking about?


Don't play the 'who me?' game. I was the person who brought it up, obviously, as anyone can see reading the thread in question. You were caught namecalling, at least admit it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
In the "proof that superpowers exist" thread, someone took offense to another's post that said "prove it." At that point, this person informed that, in science, evidence and proof are two totally different concepts. I will agree that "in science" these are two different concepts.

However, this is a forum, not a science board or council. The vast majority of posters here use everyday english to communicate with each other. If some woo woo tells me that they have superpowers, and I say "prove it", I'm not actually waiting for a mathematical formula. I am just asking for evidence.

So, to those that want to continue nitpicking on a pointless point between "evidence" and "proof", I have this to say. Shut up.

They are just completely different and I am absolutely gobsmacked that the idiots on here think they are the same.

Absolutely incredible.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Throg
The problem is that if you using everyday English, particularly with respect to words like "proof" is that if you can do it, everybody can. If you say "prove it" in an everyday English sense then you are really saying no more than "convince me" and every believer in the paranormal is quite justified in saying "it's already been proved" in an everyday English sense, meaning "I'm already convinced."

I would say this is a science site in the sense that the whole point of JREF is to apply scientific method to the investigation of paranormal claims.

It's already been proved most emphatically does not mean "I'm already convinced". It means precisely what it says -- namely "it has already been proved".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
The problem is, if we use highly precise language, many people won't get it. If we use more common speech, then it can be corrupted.

Witness the knuckleheads who think "theory" means "guess", or even better "wild-ass fantasy I pulled outta my butt".

A theory is a guess in a sense.

And there sure ain't any fear of people using "highly precise language" on here :rolleyes: I have yet to see any sKeptic use anything but highly imprecise language.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Thomas
I guess that I’m one of the debaters who triggered this thread, and in this regard I would like to clear up why this issue was raised in the first place.
As Ken pointed out, a poster was corrected for his use of the term “prove it�, in the middle of a debate, at that point I found it to be quite irrelevant, since we were debating with a person who is considered a woo, so I stated that proof and evidence is synonymous to try and make sure it wouldn’t become a big deal (these posters in question are know to generate absurd debates concerning rather irrelevant details).

However, that terms are synonymous doesn’t mean they have the same definition; I was of course fully aware of this issue, because it’s exactly the same in Denmark and all other countries I guess (and I do have a higher education, and understanding the point with a thesaurus, dictionary definitions etc. is elementary school stuff).

I think a number of posters totally misunderstood my point, and thought that I considered synonymous terms to be identical by their definition. This was a major misunderstanding, and it ignited some flaming from both sides.

I of course insisted that my claim was correct, because it actually is. The terms are synonymous.



They are synonymous?? Are you daft??

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A theory is a guess in a sense.

That, sir, says more about your approach to knowledge than I ever could...

[thaiboxerken]

JZS, if you really want to control people's use of language to a strictly scientific sense, I suggest that you write the JREF and formalize your requirement. Until such time, I'll continue to use everyday english. In effect, PROVE that I should be using your definitions instead of the commone english ones.

A theory is a guess in a sense.

It really depends on the context.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by jzs
If you want to play science, asking for proof is incorrect, regardless of what a thesaurus or dictionary say.


Show me where I have said that it isn't or quit repeating that nonsense. Thank you.


Don't play the 'who me?' game. I was the person who brought it up, obviously, as anyone can see reading the thread in question. You were caught namecalling, at least admit it.


You didn't respond to anything in that thread, you responded to a post from here. You're paranoid. I thought it to be pretty obvious that I was talking about mayday.

[Thomas]

Good, good..

Now two englishmen, and two americans has ganged up and told me that evidence isn't synonymous with proof. Let's have a look at it shall we.

yourdictionary.com - thesaurus (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/thes/e/e0553400.html)

Evidence is synonymous with proof.

WordsMyth - thesaurus (http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=evidence&matchtype=exact)

Evidence is synonymous with proof.

Yahoo - thesaurus (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/thesaurus/entry?lb=e&p=num%3aE0553400&lb=e)

Evidence is synonymous with proof.

A component selector for synonyms (http://dico.isc.cnrs.fr/dico/en/search?b=1&r=evidence)

Evidence is synonymous with proof.

Thesaurus.com (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=evidence )

Evidence is synonymous with proof.

..and here is a screen dump from a visual thesaurus..

http://www.progression-labs.com/images/evidence.jpg

Just to clear things up again-again-again: I'm fully aware that evidence doesn't have the same meaning as proof, and I have never claimed otherwise (despite accusations), but I think it's time for the gang to admit their mistake. Because that's what it's all about (on my part at least).

Synonym: A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.

Now, Grumpy ol' Beady, Paranoid jzs, Insane Ian (and Throg?).. Its' time to confess, and it's a quite simple question, so don't evade:

Is evidence synonymous with proof?

[Francois Tremblay]

They are all disingenuous and probably "pseudo-skeptics". There's a lot of those. Anything so they don't have to admit that science works.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
They are all disingenuous and probably "pseudo-skeptics". There's a lot of those. Anything so they don't have to admit that science works.
I have yet to see a post from you that isn't entirely out of context. Who are you calling pseudo-skeptics?

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Thomas
I have yet to see a post from you that isn't entirely out of context. Who are you calling pseudo-skeptics?
Well that's not all that suprising since he only has 10 posts so far :p

This entire argument is loaded with fear of being proven wrong (on both sides IMO). How g'dam egocentric of everyone... geez...
For the record, I agree with Thomas but it's hardly relevant.
We now know what Thomas meant, and what everyone else meant. Is it so hard to cut the cr*p and move on?

The only possible question left IMO is whether all the thesauri quoted are incorrect regarding the two words being closely related ;)

PS: I never read the entire previous thread, so correct me if I'm missing something :)

[billydkid]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
In the "proof that superpowers exist" thread, someone took offense to another's post that said "prove it." At that point, this person informed that, in science, evidence and proof are two totally different concepts. I will agree that "in science" these are two different concepts.

However, this is a forum, not a science board or council. The vast majority of posters here use everyday english to communicate with each other. If some woo woo tells me that they have superpowers, and I say "prove it", I'm not actually waiting for a mathematical formula. I am just asking for evidence.

So, to those that want to continue nitpicking on a pointless point between "evidence" and "proof", I have this to say. Shut up.

Well, strictly speaking, the only things that can be proved absolutely are mathmatical theorems. In common usage proof merely means evidence that can not be reasonably disputed. There is no evidence for anything paranormal which can not be reasonably disputed.

[Francois Tremblay]

Pseudo-skeptics are people who pretend to be skeptics but have been hookwinded in all sorts of bizarre ideologies, such as "science cannot prove anything". Of course, they say this while typing on a computer and publishing on an Internet board... both of which are based on proven science.

Like I said, anyone who claims that science cannot prove anything, is not a skeptic. He is making an extraordinary claim that is obviously false.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay

Like I said, anyone who claims that science cannot prove anything, is not a skeptic. He is making an extraordinary claim that is obviously false.

Either that, or he's trained as a mathematician.

I can prove that there are an infinite number of prime numbers.

I cannot prove that every even number (greater than 2) is the sum of two primes, although I wish I could. I'd have a nice cushy tenured position at the best math department in the world and never have to work a day in my life again. I can certainly amass tons of evidence to support the claim above, but I can't prove it.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Thomas


Is evidence synonymous with proof?

No.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Placebo
The only possible question left IMO is whether all the thesauri quoted are incorrect regarding the two words being closely related ;)
Don't even go there :)

Originally posted by Placebo
Pseudo-skeptics are people who pretend to be skeptics but have been hookwinded in all sorts of bizarre ideologies, such as "science cannot prove anything". Of course, they say this while typing on a computer and publishing on an Internet board... both of which are based on proven science.

You're 100% off the track again. No one in this thread, or in the other thread where you said the same out-of-context-nonsense before, have ever said that "science cannot prove anything". I have absolutely no idea what you're responding to.

If you think that this link (http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/Kuhn.html) tries to constitute that science can't prove anything, then you're quite wrong. It is an outline of Thomas Kuhn's: The structure of scientific revolutions.
It is concerned with the progressive and reactionary patterns of science. He introduced the scientific use of the term paradigm in that book. No scientist disputes that paradigms exist in science.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by new drkitten
No.
So all the thesauri on the net is giving incorrect information, I get it, I get it. You guys should write the real thesaurus... I'll look forward to the real McCoy.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Thomas
So all the thesauri on the net is giving incorrect information, I get it, I get it.

Thesauri don't give synonyms. They give related words.

(From the OED) : "A collection of concepts or words arranged according to sense." Words can be related (and share similar senses) without being synonymous.

Similarly, thesauri don't "define" anything. If you want a book that gives definitions, they're called "dictionaries."

But as an example, one of the more widely used thesauri (Roget's) lists "likely," "credible," and "apparent" in the same category (#472 : probability). But they are none of them synonyms.

So the thesaurus is giving the right information, but you're not using it properly.

[Darat]

Originally posted by new drkitten
...snip...

I cannot prove that every even number (greater than 2) is the sum of two primes, although I wish I could.

...snip...

I can, but I don't believe the prize is real, and I wouldn't want to deal with all the publicity. And anyway why do I have to prove it to you!?

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Thomas
You're 100% off the track again.
Uh, just a heads up - that quote you replied to was from Francois Tremblay, not me ;)
No need for an apology, I've done this myself a few times :p
Just mentioning

[Thomas]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Thesauri don't give synonyms. They give related words.


No, here is the dictionary definition of a thesaurus:

1. A book of synonyms, often including related and contrasting words and antonyms.

This is from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.


Similarly, thesauri don't "define" anything. If you want a book that gives definitions, they're called "dictionaries."


Shouldn't you at least read the posts in this thread before you start correcting people? In a synonym thesaurus, definition means "best match".


But as an example, one of the more widely used thesauri (Roget's) lists "likely," "credible," and "apparent" in the same category (#472 : probability). But they are none of them synonyms.


Will you agree that this (http://dico.isc.cnrs.fr/dico/en/search) is a synonym thesaurus? (Look up evidence).


So the thesaurus is giving the right information, but you're not using it properly.
Baloney. Pull the other one.

[Thomas]

Enough of the banter, now I'm gonna ask a number of English language councils:

I wan't to get to the bottoms of this once and for all, because the arguments I hear on this board is pretty far from convincing.

I'm simply gonna ask them "if evidence is synonymous with proof".

Do any of you guys have any ideas concerning who I shall mail?

All links are welcome.

Edit: Nevermind, I'll find the councils myself. Ai'l bie bak.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Thomas
No, here is the dictionary definition of a thesaurus:

1. A book of synonyms, often including related and contrasting words and antonyms.

This is from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.


So, you can't even read your own dictionary definitions properly.

1. A book of synonyms, often including related and contrasting words and antonyms.

Thesauri include lots of stuff that, by your own preferred definition are not synonyms.


Your French "thesaurus dictionary" self-admits that it is not a dictionary of synonyms, but of related meanings. "The related components are not always sufficient to separate the different meanings. We suggest an alterative unit: cliques. In our model, cliques are minimal units of meaning. By definition, all words in a clique are synonymous or analogues to the others." (Check the "About Our Model" page for an example : the "synonymy links" they offer as a primary service are, by their own admission, NOT sufficient to determing synonymy -- and they've got a nice little interface if you actually want to explore the clique-synonyms within the broader related components.

So, I repeat: "The information is correct, but you're not using it correctly."

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Thomas
Enough of the banter, now I'm gonna ask a number of English language councils:

I wan't to get to the bottoms of this once and for all, because the arguments I hear on this board is pretty far from convincing.

I'm simply gonna ask them "if evidence is synonymous with proof".


Try "askanexpert.com" or "about.com", both of which have pretty good "ask-an-expert" links.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by new drkitten
So, you can't even read your own dictionary definitions properly.


You claimed that:

Originally posted by new drkitten
Thesauri don't give synonyms.


To which I responded:

Originally posted by Thomas
Definition of a thesaurus:

1. A book of synonyms, often including related and contrasting words and antonyms.


Don't be so tense just because you were wrong. Happens to anyone. I'm aware that a thesaurus can give more than synonyms, but you specifically stated that it didn't give synonyms. I just corrected that little mistake of yours.

Originally posted by new drkitten
Your French "thesaurus dictionary" self-admits that it is not a dictionary of synonyms, but of related meanings. "The related components are not always sufficient to separate the different meanings. We suggest an alterative unit: cliques. In our model, cliques are minimal units of meaning. By definition, all words in a clique are synonymous or analogues to the others." (Check the "About Our Model" page for an example : the "synonymy links" they offer as a primary service are, by their own admission, NOT sufficient to determing synonymy -- and they've got a nice little interface if you actually want to explore the clique-synonyms within the broader related components.


So I guess they just called it a synonym dictionary to tease you. Them frenchies, such jokers (compare the two bold sentences).

Originally posted by new drkitten
So, I repeat: "The information is correct, but you're not using it correctly."

We're used to repeated bogus statements in this thread, don't thinkie of it.

Anyway, I have mailed a couple of language nerd-groups, then we'll see (if/when they respond).

[thaiboxerken]

My point still stands. One should derive the meaning of words from the context of use. ;)

[Thomas]

We both stand Ken, the only thing that lies down at this point is a massive army of straw men.

[Edited to remove a disturbing smiley :)]

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Placebo
Well that's not all that suprising since he only has 10 posts so far :p

This entire argument is loaded with fear of being proven wrong (on both sides IMO). How g'dam egocentric of everyone... geez...
For the record, I agree with Thomas but it's hardly relevant.
We now know what Thomas meant, and what everyone else meant. Is it so hard to cut the cr*p and move on?

The only possible question left IMO is whether all the thesauri quoted are incorrect regarding the two words being closely related ;)

PS: I never read the entire previous thread, so correct me if I'm missing something :)

The words are not closely related. Thesauri and dictionaries need to also provide the incorrect usage of words as well as the correct usage.

Evidence simply means data which increases the overall likelihood of something being the case. Thus, in the absence of such evidence, we might judge the likelihood to be 0.1%. But if we have evidence the likelihood might, say, jump to 0.2%.

On the other hand, to prove something means to say that one has demonstrated or provided sufficient evidence that it couldn't possibly be otherwise i.e 100%.

Are you able to understand the difference between something like 0.2% and 100%??

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
Pseudo-skeptics are people who pretend to be skeptics but have been hookwinded in all sorts of bizarre ideologies, such as "science cannot prove anything". Of course, they say this while typing on a computer and publishing on an Internet board... both of which are based on proven science.

Like I said, anyone who claims that science cannot prove anything, is not a skeptic. He is making an extraordinary claim that is obviously false.

When it is said that "science cannot prove anything", the manipulation, control, and utilisation of the environment to create technology is not being questioned. Rather, what is being questioned are the underlying theories accounting for phenomena. I mean we can send men to the moon and back using Newtonian mechanics, but that doesn't mean to say that Newtonian mechanics correctly describes reality -- as we know, it doesn't.

[Thomas]

I have recieved word from Professor Altieri (Berkeley University).

The answer to the question is good and justified, and I will post it here later.

He basically says yes and no (i.e. "they can be synonymous in this case.." etc.), and this also explains why this dispute was raised in the first place, and why the thesauri supports that they're synonymous. I'll get back with the full quote soon enough. Others are still debating.

[thaiboxerken]

In either case... the context defines the word. :D

[Thomas]

Ok, here's the answers I recieved.

Here is the first one:

By Prof. Altieri [ The English Faculty - Berkeley University ]

"I am not an expert but I would say that proof and evidence can be synomyms only when proof is translated as give some proof. Otherwise evidence is not parallel to proof but a means to an end. The problem with fixing synonyms is that you have to have stable terms to begin with and proof is ambiguous between an element in a case and the effect of a case."


I think it's an interesting point that they can be considered synonymous in certain cases. However, he says himself that he's not an expert, but, I also recieved an answer from someone who actually is considered an expert in these matters:

By Prof. Pulman [ General linguistics - Oxford University ]

"Well, it depends what synonymous means! As you say, in some contexts, the two words would be more or less interchangeable without affecting meaning. But most linguists would regard synonymy as requiring a stronger relation: interchangeable in any context of use without affecting meaning.
This is not so for these two terms: you would talk about a definitive proof (of a theorem) say, but (positive) evidence could never be definitive, at least if you think Popper and Hempel were right about confirmation and falsification.

It would be perfectly consistent to say that you have evidence for, but no proof of, a particular proposition: if the two terms were synonymous, this should be a contradiction.
It may be that this is too strict a criterion. Many people these days think that there are no (non-definitional) synonyms (see for example books like Jerry Fodor, 1998, ``Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong'', Clarendon Press, Oxford.)

This may not settle your question, but I hope it helps."


What he basically says here, is that most linguists don't consider the terms to be synonymous, as they would require a stronger relation (I never stated my own personal oponion on the matter, but merely asked the question as I said I would). It's interesting that he says "most linguists", because that suggests that there isn't a conclusive agreement in this concern. Had I been a very stubborn person now, then I could easily make a big deal out of this, but..

In the light of Pulman's answer, I will now throw in the towel, wave the white flag and compose a requiem. Ok, maybe I won't compose the requiem, but the towel and the white flag stands. I will bow to the majority ("most linguists") as a good democrat and a fair player. Also, I must admit that Pulman charmed me slightly by bringing Popper and Hempel to the stand (but I still think Ian is insane though).

Both quotes are posted here in full length with permissions by those quoted.

[Edited for spell'ies]

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Thomas

Also, I must admit that Pulman charmed me slightly by bringing Popper and Hempel to the stand (but I still think Ian is insane though).



Why am I insane? It's interesting that Popper and Hempel were mentioned. I was going to mention Popper before when people found it ludicrous when I said that there is no proof in science. Yet at the same time they think a test of whether a theory is scientific or not is whether it is potentially falsifiable. But of course if one has proved something, then it cannot be falsifiable. :rolleyes:

The general idiocy of sKeptics on here is outstanding.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why am I insane?
Hmm.. don't know really, I just like to say that once in a while, to be generic you know.. Also, it makes me feel more sane than I actually am :)

Edit: No wait, maybe it's because you believe in anything that begins with "para" and ends with "normal". I don't know.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why am I insane?


It's considered a breach of medical ethics to diagnose over the Internet, and in practical terms, I would need your consent and cooperation to run the tests and figure out exactly what caused you to become insane.

So I'm afraid I'm going to have to skip this one.

It's interesting that Popper and Hempel were mentioned. I was going to mention Popper before when people found it ludicrous when I said that there is no proof in science. Yet at the same time they think a test of whether a theory is scientific or not is whether it is potentially falsifiable. But of course if one has proved something, then it cannot be falsifiable. :rolleyes:


But, of course, if there is no proof in science, then nothing can have been proved, so your second statement hinges on a false-by-assumption hypothetical.

More generally, the structure of experimental statements generally precludes the idea of being able to prove them. You claim to have read some philosophy, so you should be familiar with Hume and the problems associated with induction. In the case of experimental evidence, there's also the problem of research misconduct or simple experimental error that prevents even a simple reportage of a fact from being considered "proof" of a fact.

So depending upon what your personal meaning of "proof" is (which given your track record could be almost anything, and I suspect it has to do with the alcoholic content of a drink), either scientific statements cannot typically be "proven" in the general case and will always remain falsifialble for that reason, or alternatively statements can be "proven" but the proof itself can be falsified if the underlying evidence can be shown to be errorneous, which would render the statement falsifiable by collecting contrary evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

They key to defining any word is the context in which it is used. A dictionary only tries to accurately describe how words are used in the current times, however, a dictionary doesn't update as fast as language changes.

However, while most linguists assert that the words must be interchangable regardless of context, I believe that this only furthers my opinion. That is, it's the CONTEXT of use that defines the word. While proof and evidence are not synonyms in every context, they can be synonymous dependant on the context of use.

Ian, go smurf yourself.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why am I insane?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr K
It's considered a breach of medical ethics to diagnose over the Internet, and in practical terms, I would need your consent and cooperation to run the tests and figure out exactly what caused you to become insane.

So I'm afraid I'm going to have to skip this one.


If you are talking about my beliefs eg my belief in some paranormal phenomena and a rejection of materialism etc, then I should point out that it is your beliefs that are aberrant on these issues in that most people who have ever lived would resoundingly reject your beliefs. Your beliefs are simply a reflection of the prevailing intellectual beliefs of modern western culture. The fact that I am going against the tide here does not make me insane. It simply means I refuse to be "brainwashed" by the common western metaphysic.




II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's interesting that Popper and Hempel were mentioned. I was going to mention Popper before when people found it ludicrous when I said that there is no proof in science. Yet at the same time they think a test of whether a theory is scientific or not is whether it is potentially falsifiable. But of course if one has proved something, then it cannot be falsifiable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But, of course, if there is no proof in science, then nothing can have been proved,



In science yes. A brilliant deduction Dr K! ;)



so your second statement hinges on a false-by-assumption hypothetical.



Huh? Which statement precisely??



More generally, the structure of experimental statements generally precludes the idea of being able to prove them. You claim to have read some philosophy, so you should be familiar with Hume and the problems associated with induction.



yes yes yes. I got a first in both the history and philosophy of science, and also the 17th century thinkers modules.





In the case of experimental evidence, there's also the problem of research misconduct or simple experimental error that prevents even a simple reportage of a fact from being considered "proof" of a fact.



yes



So depending upon what your personal meaning of "proof" is (which given your track record could be almost anything, and I suspect it has to do with the alcoholic content of a drink), either scientific statements cannot typically be "proven" in the general case and will always remain falsifialble for that reason,



yes