What exactly qualifies as a proofRecently a thread of mine got locked. The reason was that I didn't have enough proof backing me up. The thread in itself is not my concern. Since then a question stuck in my mind. What is a proof exactly? A claim from which source classifies as a proof?
Can a documentary that does enough research before coming out on TV and internet, serve as a proof? Is a piece of news from NDTV a proof? A newspaper article from a well known newspaper?
Proof. When I think more about it, I think I need a proof for proof now.
If documentaries are indeed proofs, then that thread of mine didn't deserve to be locked. The video in question, as I clearly explained later, is from a documentary "Animals like us". I grew up watching that show and I believe everything I observed in that is true.
Are not proofs debated over? People always doubt the source. Back to the topic, proof. When I was participating in MUN (model United nations), they clearly specified that I was required to research and learn only from BBC, apparently the most trusted source. But is it really? BBC is a channel. Profit is its paramount. Though it is owned by the government, it makes money by selling its shows to public or private channels. A survey even says that only 48% of BBC news is accurate. BBC just like any other news channel, gets its news from "trusted sources" aka local whistleblowers. No wonder why BBC can milk more news that anyone else. I'm not trying to sound sceptical here but all news in general are rumors. Because what we watch, is what we observe, our perception.
Proof. What is a proof then? A unison opinion? Scientific proofs are always accepted and debunked. But what about social news like these? What is proof really anymore?