Proof vs. Evidence

Definition:

“Proof” is a demonstration that establishes a statement as 100% accurate.

“Evidence” is information or data that supports the accuracy or validity of a claim, but does not imply absolute certainty.

Etymology:

The word “proof” comes from the Old French “prove” or “prueve” and the Latin “probare,” meaning “to test” or “prove.” This origin is closely associated with the idea of verifying or demonstrating the accuracy of a concept.

“Evidence” originates from the Latin word “evidentia,” meaning “obvious” or “visible.” It stems from “evidens,” implying something clear or manifest. This etymology underlines the nature of evidence as something that makes a claim more apparent or recognizable.

Description:

A problem with the English language is that there are two words for “proof” when there should only be one. The word “evidence” mimics the word “proof,” but they are, in fact, antonyms. Proof is something that is 100% accurate. Evidence, on the other hand, is something that seems most likely accurate but lacks proof. By definition, only “proof,” not “evidence,” is a strict pathway to accurate information.

The word “proof” seems synonymous with the term “irrefutable evidence,” not “evidence,” but they are not the same. Testing something repeatedly and getting the same result 100% of the time you test it is the only form of proof that is valid.

If you look up the definition of “evidence,” you will find that evidence only indicates that something is true, but it does not have to be true. The reasoning behind this is that there is always a possibility that other evidence may emerge that contradicts the evidence you have already found. However, do not misunderstand—there is no possibility that other evidence may emerge that contradicts proof.

You will be told that evidence is not the same as irrefutable evidence, with irrefutable evidence meaning 100% accurate. This is not logical. If evidence is not infallible or irrefutable, then it is not proof. Adding the word “irrefutable” before the word “evidence” is unnecessary. The linguistic error that occurs here is that if the word “evidence” does not mean that something is 100% accurate, you cannot add an additional word (adjective) before the word “evidence” to make it mean that it is 100% accurate. That would be called a half-truth. If it is not 100% accurate, then it is impossible for you to have proof that it is accurate. In cases where you believe something is accurate, but it is not, it is based on an illusion, not proof.

A common mistake people make is thinking that the amount of information they have indicating a result is evidence that it is accurate. They also believe that the correct way to convince them otherwise requires a greater amount of information indicating that something else is accurate. However, this approach will not lead to proof. Each and every claim must be tested and confirmed separately. No matter how large the amount of misinformation is, it will never become accurate. It may become more believable to someone who is ignorant, but it will never become accurate for that reason.

Many argue that it’s impossible for something to be demonstrated as 100% accurate because new evidence can always emerge that contradicts the claim. This argument is a logical fallacy called “contradictory premises.” It’s like saying, “Nothing can be known for certain, and I am certain of that.” The argument is rendered false because you can’t be certain if nothing can be known for certain.

In law, which is a language scheme, “proof” does not mean 100% accuracy, as the court system is based on judgment, a concept rooted in human interpretation. The court system consists of lawyers whose job is to argue their case, regardless of whether it is accurate, in order to persuade the court or jury of a party’s position.

In law, there is a system called “Standards of Proof,” which consists of the following:

  • Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (Criminal Law): The highest standard, required in criminal cases. It means the evidence must be so convincing that no reasonable person could doubt the defendant’s guilt.
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence (Civil Law/Specific Issues): A medium standard, used in certain civil cases, such as fraud. It means the evidence must show that it is highly probable or reasonably certain.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence (Civil Law): The lowest standard, often used in civil cases. It means that something is more likely accurate than not, requiring just over 50% certainty.