-1- wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 11:04 am
You so completely and conveniently forget that evidence can be proof, in certain circumstances, when evidence is sufficient, and it can be short of being a proof, in other circumstances, when evidence is insufficient.
Your dictionary examples take (rather arbitrarily) the case when evidence is sufficient to proof.
-1- wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 11:37 am
Avarro has found a dictionary definition that states "proof: evidence..." etc., and he never bothered to explore the entry further, in which it was explained that
a certain type of evidence (sufficient evidence) provides proof, but
there are evidence (insufficient evidence) which does not provide proof.
I have understood you already. For you sufficient evidence provides proof and insufficient evidence does not provide proof. I agree with that also but not only! What about the cases of sufficient proof and insufficient proof? Are these phrases allowed in your semantics?
In my appreciation of the beauty of the English language, there is no rule in the English language that restricts the application of the adjectives “sufficient” and “insufficient” solely to the noun “evidence”! Therefore, for me it equally makes sense to apply these adjectives to both the nouns “evidence” and “proof”! Moreover, from the definitions of the nouns “evidence” and “proof” themselves, nothing would prevent the application of the adjectives “sufficient” and “insufficient” to either of them! Additionally the common English language authorities (dictionaries and other references) have ALL found that the nouns “evidence” and “proof” are synonymous.
Based on all these linguistic considerations now, for me there is also the cases of sufficient proof and insufficient proof! In my semantics therefore, sufficient proof amounts to proof and insufficient proof does not amount to proof! Moreover, I also have the following relations in my semantics: sufficient evidence is sufficient proof; sufficient proof is proof just as sufficient evidence is evidence; sufficient proof is evidence just as sufficient evidence is proof; insufficient evidence is insufficient proof; insufficient evidence is not evidence just as insufficient proof is not proof; insufficient evidence is not proof just as insufficient proof is not evidence because evidence is synonymous with proof as the English language references propose, e.g.:
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof
These are my semantics from my, as you implied, “arbitrary” dictionaries. Well about the arbitrariness of the dictionaries, I had no choice in the matter but to comply with the authorities because the English language was already well established many centuries before I was even born! Moreover, I have never had legislative powers in the English language but I am merely a law abiding citizen in the city of the English language; and I don’t feel like looking for trouble either with the English language authorities! I am not into politics either, so they legislate and I abide.
_____________
-1- wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 11:04 am
Explain, if you so will, please, how come there are such things as
insufficient evidence of proof
sufficient evidence of proof
if the two are synonyms?
As far as I understand, “Proof of evidence” and the likes are technical legal terms which have a very specific meaning in a legal context. I also appreciate that “proof of evidence” is a noun. Which now means that the correct meaning of the technical legal noun “proof of evidence” cannot be deduced solely from the separate synonymous meaning of the common nouns “proof” and “evidence”, but it is given a specific definition in a legal context. Moreover, in my understanding, since the noun “proof of evidence” is a specific
technical term, it does not have an effect on the synonymity of the
common nouns “proof” and “evidence.” Besides if this were thought to be a problem, then how come in mathematics we have the concept of a function of function?! For example, (x-1)^2 is a quadratic function of a linear function! Now, the appropriateness of juxtaposition of the adjectives “sufficient” or “insufficient” to that legal noun can only be assessed in context when that noun is used in a sentence.
Proof of evidence (noun) : a written summary of what a witness will say in evidence during a hearing
In her proof of evidence to the inquiry, Ms Tibbets said: “Experts admit that such findings cannot be 100 per cent accurate."
Reference:
https://www.translegal.com/legal-englis ... f-evidence
___________
-1- wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 11:04 am
Also, we can use your type of test of synonymy of "proof" and "evidence". It is dead easy to illustrate the wrongness of your view this way:
5. We found some
proof on the murder scene: a footprint of Mike’s shoe.
6. But it’s not
proof that Mike was the murderer. Someone else could have worn his shoes.
Now you see the error in your ways? Something can't both be proof and not proof at the same time and in the same respect.
There is no error in my way but there is a misunderstanding on your part. Let me explain.
Indeed something cannot be a proof and not a proof at the same time in the same respect. That is the law of non-contradiction. But something can be a proof on a murder scene and at the same time that same thing can also not be a proof that Mike was the murderer. It is not the same proof in the same respect in the latter case. You have to consider the whole
noun phrase including the noun “proof” and not just the noun “proof” in isolation! For the noun “proof” is being qualified by what follows it! In the example you gave, one such noun phrase was “a proof on the murder scene” and the other was “a proof that Mike was the murderer”. Here the qualifying phrase “on the murder scene” and qualifying clause “that Mike was the murderer” distinguishes
different concepts of proofs. And these
different proof concepts might be equal or not equal. For example, in each of the statements below the law of non-contradiction is being upheld:
1. Either some proof on the murder scene is a proof that Mike is the murderer OR some proof on the murder scene is not a proof that Mike is the murderer.
Now, since evidence is synonymous with proof in my semantics I also understand the following sentences to be equivalent:
2. Either some evidence on the murder scene is an evidence that Mike is the murderer OR some evidence on the murder scene is not an evidence that Mike is the murderer.
3. Either some evidence on the murder scene is proof that Mike is the murderer OR some evidence on the murder scene is not a proof that Mike is the murderer.
4. Either some proof on the murder scene is an evidence that Mike is the murderer OR some proof on the murder scene is not an evidence that Mike is the murderer.
After this brief interesting linguistic and English grammar interlude, I propose that we get back to philosophy if you concur.
___________________________
I recall that previously you had made the following statements which you honorably declined to take back:
-1- wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 7:55 pm
I agreed with you. Wholeheartedly. Darwinism is a question of belief.
We have also seen from the common English language dictionary that belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief
From these considerations, we necessarily deduce that Darwinists are people who accept the theory of Darwin as true without proof. The latter follows logically and unequivocally from your own statements. So, so far so good then!
The point where we diverged is where it was said that Dawinism is without any evidence whatsoever.
I took note that you have insisted on a distinction between insufficient evidence which does not provide proof and sufficient evidence which provide proof. My semantics also include those distinctions as I already explained. So let us focus on this common ground between us.
Since your previous wholehearted statement implied unambiguously that Darwinism is without proof, and you distinguished that insufficient evidence does not provide proof and sufficient evidence provides proof, this now necessarily entails that in your own judgment, therefore, Darwinism rests on insufficient evidence! I can agree on that! In my semantics, furthermore, as already stated previously, insufficient evidence is not evidence. On the latter we can disagree of course.
Moreover, other members contributing positively on this interesting topic, has made matters worse for your conception of Darwinism by adding that proof is irrefutable (QuantumT) or proof is conclusive (vegetariantaxidermy) whereas evidence, according to them, merely points in all direction or is merely just circumstantial. And additionally now, if we qualify their concept of evidence with your qualifier "insufficient," your concept of Darwinism would be in a worse condition that I had expected initially! On my grounds at least evidence was on the same footing as proof! If that can make the case of Darwinism worse, then I am very much seduced by the idea of adopting your semantics of evidence and proof!
But certainly I take home that for you Darwinism rests on insufficient evidence which does not provide proof!
As usual it is really a great pleasure to philosophize in your company. And I mean that wholeheartedly.
___________
