You're arguing that "Sufficient evidence" and simply "evidence" aren't the same thing. Who defines what "Sufficient" means? It's totally relative to who is deciding what is sufficient or not. Hardly any evidence could be sufficient enough for some people.
Yes! Yes, Dustin my boy! That is exactly right.
The question of how much evidence is sufficient to prove something is at the absolute heart of law, science and logic.
I'm glad you see that now.
Who decides what constitutes sufficient evidence to be considered proof? It depends on the type of use we intend to make of the information.
In this thread, you asked people what evidence they personally would accept as proof. That's the lowest, most subjective level possible. It has no application except to satisfy the individual thinker. It may not even satisfy his best friend or closest ally.
In law, there are many different standards of proof that we, as a society, have settled on. If you rob my store and I sue you for the money you stole, I have to prove you took it by a preponderance of the evidence - that it is more likely than not that you took it. But if the DA wants to charge you with a crime, she has to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Notice, the jurors are still allowed to convict you if they have doubt, just not reasonable doubt. The higher standard is employed because being conviced of a crime by the state is much more serious than a private action for money.
Scientists have an entirely different standard of proof. They generally consider a matter settled when there is no known evidence that does not fit their theory. They do not allow themselves any doubt at all. If there is any doubt, the matter is entirely undecided. Even then, scientists know that new information might be discovered that will cast doubt on even the most long-settled principles. So they never consider a matter proven. Ever. It is impossible to prove a matter in science, only to temporarily relieve doubt and satisfy their minds.
Logical proof is the highest standard of proof there is. It means that the conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are true. There is zero room for doubt.
Now, your question is, "Who defines what 'Sufficient' means?" This is an excellent question. The answer is that everyone involved in the discussion must agree how much evidence will constitute proof. To do so, they use logic. The people of the US say that they want criminals in jail but they don't want a powerful government railroading helpless individuals for political reasons; thus they demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Scientists say that they want a clear understanding of the way the world works but they don't want to fall into the trap of dogmatism that weighed down the Dark Ages; thus they never consider a matter proven. Logicians say they want to be certain that their conclusions are indisputably rock-solid so they can build upon them; thus they accept only perfect internal consistency as proof.
When is proof an entirely subjective matter? Whenever the only person you have to convince is yourself.
Was Halo better than Halo 2? Did Keri Russel make a mistake cutting her hair? Are the Yankees done for the season? - Whatever you decide about these issues is the right answer because the only person bound by the decision is yourself.
But when attempting to convince others, you're going to have to agree on a standard of proof first.
In this thread, you have randomly varried between the highest and lowest standards of proof as it suits you at the moment. And that behavior will never help you prove anything to anybody.
