It’s a common mistake. Sarcasm for flattery, tofu for bacon, shineola for brains, and evidence for proof. Close, but not really the same.
While the GOP continually insists that there is nothing to see here, and Jefferson Sessions can’t recall the last time he stepped in so much sheit and tracked it all over the floor of the Senate, one of the things we are hearing on an almost daily basis as belligerent refutation is "There is no (proof|evidence) that this thing occurred." This is one of the most misunderstood and misleading statements about evidence and proof, and it is perpetuated every day in the news cycles. I’m just going to say it: anyone who now says "there is no evidence" is either misinformed, omnisciently informed, or completely retaining increment to capacity. It’s not even an argument, it’s just just plain disingenuous B.S.
So, it's probably a good time for a short primer on quickly rebutting such an outrageous claim, and very simply.
The one-liner? Contrary to the dubious wisdom of the monkey triplets, a thing doesn't cease to exist through a mere present lack of direct and irrefutable evidence. (Or as we used to say in the South, “Just because I’m blind doesn’t mean you ain’t ugly.”
If it did, the 2nd Amendment would be protecting us from harm through the right to bear Hands without infringement, which would be much more than a lobby against the frilly glove industry. "Tough on crime" would mean "no peeking." Ah, one can dream. But I digress, back to semantics.
(If you are having trouble falling asleep, please read on as flagellated expired equines await your audience...)
First of all, let's separate "proof" from "evidence." "Proof" originally comes from the Latin probare, which is "to test". It doesn't make something true or false, it tests to see if we can conclude as much. So if someone says "there is no proof", then they may be right if no one has bothered to apply the rigors of scientific method against the premise in question to see if there is a "there there", or if it a complete rectstrapolation1. Current use has merged into much the same as "evidence", but the origins are significant enough to mention, and the present use really makes proof mean incontrovertible evidence. Asking the President a question provides proof of his being a liar, the evidence is sure to follow in a Tweet:
(How the F do you bleach an email?! With a series of chlorine tubes?)
"Evidence" comes from evidentia, that which is obvious to the eye or mind. Its current meaning can range from an irrefutable demonstration to signs or suggestions that warrant further investigation. Therefore, if there is even a whiff of support for a proposition, then there is evidence of it being true. Doesn't necessarily make it true, but doesn't have to be a captured-on-tape example of incrimination either. I guess referring back to the monkey-triplets, well-placed palms (or sitting on one's own shoulders) would obviate such an obviousness, but for the rest of us, an indicator to further question something should be considered evidence.
So, how do we "prove" something? We look for and then gather evidence sufficient to remove doubt. And in that investigation, we come up with a position that we can use evidence to confirm (or deny, depending on the inclination of the way the proposal is constructed).
Let's start with a statement of negative, "A banana does not exist." The quest for evidence in this case is to find anything conclusive that contradicts that hypothesis. If I look in the apple section of the store, and yes we have no bananas, it does not confirm my hypothesis. And if I look in the banana section and it is empty, it still does not prove that bananas do not exist. However if any banana or conclusive evidence of a banana existing is found, then this statement is now proven false, unless the evidence is misread or demonstrably falsified (which then requires a whole 'nother series of investigations if the new premise is that the veracity of the evidence is under dispute). As they used to say while wearing togas, Q.E.D.; or in the schoolyard, “Nyaeh!”
Now if on the other hand I say, "Bananas exist (or 'Collusion took place')," one incidence of irrefutable bananas/collusion proves the assertion to be true. While a lack of such evidence does not make the bananas/collusion cease to exist, it only establishes that there isn't enough evidence to conclude with confidence that there was indeed collusion/a banana/the yuuugest inaugural crowd EVER. So a tweet saying "no|zero evidence of collusion" falls squarely in the chamber pot unless that tweet came from a saintly innocent party or omniscient being. Last time I checked, the guy that Scooby Doo refers to as Rotta Rump is neither.
There you have it. Yes we have evidence, no, it may not YET be incontrovertible proof, but we won't know unless we look. The next time a pundit (or president) screams "there is no evidence," could we please ask them to take off their Ouroboros helmet? Assure them that while it's not as warm out here, it's brighter and smells better, and makes them look like less of an ass.
(Disclaimer: this is a mere soliloquy for entertainment purposes only on semantics and rudimentary logic, not evidentiary procedure, which is far outside my purview as an amateur pedant and professional data analyst.)
1Yeah, I made that up. I pulled it out of my backside, and if you understand the reference, isn’t that proof that it’s really a word?