Not sure why the grey area, but it seems reasonable.
This was inspired by another thread, but in no way should continue that path. It's just an interesting concept. No I'm not going to quote dictionary definitions because society has understandings that override or augment definitions by fair margin.
Proof as a western concept is implicitly close to irrefutable - I don't know if much is truly irrefutable. You can give it to someone else and expect concurrence.
Evidence is a piece of (usually) a body of more evidence that may or may not be proof, ever.
Take something like the HB laptop. It's got loads of evidence HB did lots of illegal things, but technically it's not proof. It's just lots of evidence. The feds finally acknowledged it is real, but in the end, pics can be manipulated, and illegality implied without context. A picture of you looking like you are doing lines is only evidence, but not proof -- even if it's a polaroid.
That said, it gets interesting that proof is both a social and individual construct. You can watch your friend buy drugs, crunch them up, and snort them, and that can be considered "proof", but only to you. You have proven to yourself, but to anyone else, it is just evidence. This is interesting because you have proof, but it is non-conveyable proof, only conveyable evidence.
You may be able to combine enough evidence to become conveyable proof to someone else, but that same "proof" remains only evidence to others. You could tell the story to your friend's family, and they might have other evidence, none of which is proof, but can be proof as a whole to them. They no longer have any doubts. Let's say they have found baggies, seen their family member appearing hopped up a bunch of times, etc. and decide the body of evidence is proof.
That said, remember Hogzilla. The news was filled with analysts and image experts offering proof that it was a hoax. One particular person was an FBI image analyst and who brought out his highlighter and circled pixels declaring it was absolute proof the image was faked. Well, years later National Geographic paid the guys to dig up the hog and it was exactly as they described in spite of the "proof" otherwise. Later, an even larger hog was killed on a Texas farm putting the issue to rest. It shows that really, the purported image manipulation was just evidence of an FBI analyst and proof of nothing.
Nowadays, we have limited our ability to present proof, and most things can only be considered as evidence - some strong and some weak. People used to say you need better video, and now we have it, but you can fake literally anything so it's pretty useless as proof, but can be strong evidence given the body of context etc.
In middle school, we had a girl who told the class she had seen a ghost at the end of her bed. She came from a very poor family and lived in an old drafty (understatement) house. She was not prone to lying, but was mistreated a bit for just being extremely poor. Without exception everyone laughed and called it nonsense. She had no evidence, but she had proof herself (assuming she wasn't lying). I remember years later when I too got proof of such things thinking of the frustration that it is unconveyable proof, and only becomes potential evidence to someone else.
This was inspired by another thread, but in no way should continue that path. It's just an interesting concept. No I'm not going to quote dictionary definitions because society has understandings that override or augment definitions by fair margin.
Proof as a western concept is implicitly close to irrefutable - I don't know if much is truly irrefutable. You can give it to someone else and expect concurrence.
Evidence is a piece of (usually) a body of more evidence that may or may not be proof, ever.
Take something like the HB laptop. It's got loads of evidence HB did lots of illegal things, but technically it's not proof. It's just lots of evidence. The feds finally acknowledged it is real, but in the end, pics can be manipulated, and illegality implied without context. A picture of you looking like you are doing lines is only evidence, but not proof -- even if it's a polaroid.
That said, it gets interesting that proof is both a social and individual construct. You can watch your friend buy drugs, crunch them up, and snort them, and that can be considered "proof", but only to you. You have proven to yourself, but to anyone else, it is just evidence. This is interesting because you have proof, but it is non-conveyable proof, only conveyable evidence.
You may be able to combine enough evidence to become conveyable proof to someone else, but that same "proof" remains only evidence to others. You could tell the story to your friend's family, and they might have other evidence, none of which is proof, but can be proof as a whole to them. They no longer have any doubts. Let's say they have found baggies, seen their family member appearing hopped up a bunch of times, etc. and decide the body of evidence is proof.
That said, remember Hogzilla. The news was filled with analysts and image experts offering proof that it was a hoax. One particular person was an FBI image analyst and who brought out his highlighter and circled pixels declaring it was absolute proof the image was faked. Well, years later National Geographic paid the guys to dig up the hog and it was exactly as they described in spite of the "proof" otherwise. Later, an even larger hog was killed on a Texas farm putting the issue to rest. It shows that really, the purported image manipulation was just evidence of an FBI analyst and proof of nothing.
Nowadays, we have limited our ability to present proof, and most things can only be considered as evidence - some strong and some weak. People used to say you need better video, and now we have it, but you can fake literally anything so it's pretty useless as proof, but can be strong evidence given the body of context etc.
In middle school, we had a girl who told the class she had seen a ghost at the end of her bed. She came from a very poor family and lived in an old drafty (understatement) house. She was not prone to lying, but was mistreated a bit for just being extremely poor. Without exception everyone laughed and called it nonsense. She had no evidence, but she had proof herself (assuming she wasn't lying). I remember years later when I too got proof of such things thinking of the frustration that it is unconveyable proof, and only becomes potential evidence to someone else.
