Seeing the Bigger Picture: Evidence versus Proof

A while back I posted about how I like doing puzzles. I have a puzzle app where many of the puzzles don't show the entire picture to start out. As I start one of these puzzles, I try to guess what the picture might be. Sometimes this is quite easy and others, I was more than halfway done before I realized what was going on.

I believe there is often a bigger picture to be seen than the small puzzle pieces we seem to focus on. As parts are connected and come together, we can see and understand what that picture is and start to understand the effect it will have on our lives.

One of the things I have noticed about society is the need for data and information to support our belief as to where a puzzle piece fits, how it fits, why it fits, or even simply what it is, or data and information to oppose another person's belief that we don't agree with or believe ourselves.

Two similar concepts that have helped me in forming opinions and seeing where pieces fit into the picture are the scientific method and (my very basic understanding of) the proceedings in a court of law.

The way I understand it, a law, for both science and in court rooms, is the absolute at the given point. In science, this is because it has been proven. In a court room, this is because the law makers have decided this is what they feel is best for the benefit of society (or depending on your point of view, the best to keep them in office). Laws in science very rarely change. Laws in the legal sense change, it seems, about as often as the wind changes.

However, when trying to understand something, anything really, it seems as though you can use a process similar to either legal proceedings or the scientific method to determine an outcome.

Both start with an idea or question of what happened or what will happen. Then comes research, discovery, data collection. Now you can create an hypothesis which is a suggested outcome based on the data and information collected. At the testing phase, you see if your hypothesis will hold up. In a court, this depends on many human variables. Science is generally in a slightly more controlled environment. Now, either the judge or jury for a court of law or you if conducting an experiment can analyze results and draw conclusions.

While some people have a firm grasp on this part of the concept, the piece I find many forget is the difference between proof and evidence. Proof means there is no way to show any other alternative or come to a different conclusion. Evidence is just something that points towards, leads to, or gives hint of a possible conclusion.

In a court of law, DNA is proof. No one (except clones and maybe identical twins) shares DNA. So you can't claim that DNA isn't yours. However, depending on where the DNA was found and what source it came from, alternate theories of how it got there can be given. Science has only a few laws; gravity and thermodynamics are the only 2 that come immediately to mind. However, similar to law, these laws are only in force given certain criteria.

On the other hand, evidence only points or nudges to a certain outcome. The legal system gives instructions on how much weight evidence should hold when making a decision and how far decided on that outcome you should be before coming to a decision; for example, preponderance of evidence, reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt. In science, usually the outcome needs to be repeated several times with the same outcome or the end data needs to be scientifically significant.

The reason I wanted to talk about all of this is too many people in debates or arguments over political, societal, and moral topics treat evidence as proof. Or in collecting data and information, they saw trends and simply skipped straight to draw conclusions. I have seen people who ignore the opposing party's evidence because it doesn't fit. Sometimes during testing, they allowed too many variables or didn't have a control group to compare their data against.

Doing these things blurs the edges of each puzzle piece and makes it appear as though the piece fits when it really doesn't. I have done a puzzle with 1 or 2 pieces in the wrong spot and struggled to complete the puzzle. One puzzle I was actually convinced there was a piece missing from the brand new box rather than the simpler conclusion of a piece out of place. Being open minded to other possibilities helps us not fall into this problem of being convinced we are always right or the only one right, when it may be us who has the piece in the wrong place.