Mr Sensible LIVE vs Kyle Adams - What is proof?
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 11. 2022
- I welcome @Ripple.US. back to the channel where we will be debating 'What is Proof?' and 'Does science prove things?'
Come and join in via my discord - / discord - and go into the 'LIVE waiting room', chat with anyone there and wait for Mr Sensible to move you into the LIVE stream! (No guarantee you will get on LIVE!)
All are welcome including Flat Earthers and I expect everyone to respect everyone else. Have fun and Stay Sensible!
+++++++++
Donate: ko-fi.com/MrSensible
Donate via Willow: wlo.link/@MrSensible
Support on Patreon: / mrsensible
Become a member: / @mrsensiblehistoric
Contact Mr Sensible on Discord: / discord
Email Mr Sensible: Mr-Sensible@hotmail.com
Please subscribe and an aid package is sent to a flerf :-)
Stay Sensible!
--------------------------------------------------------
Additional Music & Sound: www.bensound.com & www.zapsplat.com
#MrSensible #MrSensibleLIVE #MrSensibleLIVEStream
Kyle and Mr S need to BOTH look up terms like "fallablism", "PROVISIONAL knowledge", and brush on the basic, foundational philosophy of science- Mr S has a better handle on philosphy of science than Kyle does, and was rarely just straight-up WRONG like Kyle frequently is. But Mr S does a bad job of explaining things, here- Instead, he's stuck on playing catch-up, to Kyle's smug little "gotcha" that he's so proud of, about "sO yOu ADMIT tHaT yOuCan"t pRoVe tEh GloBe?!?"
Yes Kyle. WE ADMIT THAT SCIENC CAN'T "PROVE" THE GLOBE... OR ANYTHING ELSE, EVER... BECAUSE "PROOF" IS AN ABSTRACT, THEORETICAL, ON-PAPER CONCEPT, THAT *ONLY* APPLIES TO ABSTRACT, THEORETICAL, ON-PAPER DISCPLINES LIKE MATHS AND FORMAL LOGIC (exactly the same way that "logical fallacies" are abstractions, 100% outside the realm of science... which is why no scientific study, in the history of science has EVER claimed to "prove" anything, or has EVER been accepted/rejected, on the basis of "logical fallacy"... Why can't flat earthers grasp that you can't just take ABSTRACT, ON-PAPER concepts like "proof", "fallacies", "modus tollens", etc and just mash them into the PRACTICAL, REAL-WORLD discpline of science? You may as well claim "The science isn't valid, because it breaks the rules of performative dance!!!" Or "This science is totally disproved, by applying the principal from musical theory..." Jeez, it's ALMOST like flat earthers have a really, really, REEEAAALLY bad grasp of the most basic foundations of science... or like they have trouble differentiating THE PRACTICAL, MEASURABLE REAL WORLD, and the IMAGINARY, ABSTRACT WORLD]
But the thing that separates science from religion, is that science DOESN'T claim absolute, 100% certainty (implicit in "proof"), like every single religion does- Science (unlike religions) accepts the fact that we are ALL fallable humans, and are ALL, ALWAYS capable of being mistaken, even when we're really, really, really, really sincrely convinced (like Kyle is) that we "KNOW" some fact, for 100% abolute certain (and he MAY be correct about some things he "knows"... but the problem is, that a fallable human, he can't ever tell WHICH of things he "knows" are correct, and which are wrong- YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW)... So unlike religion, science requires REAL, money-where-your-mouth-is humbleness and honesty; It requires an ever-present acceptance of the fact that ANY/ALL of us may ALWAYS be mistaken. This is called "fallabalism", and is an absolute, ground-floor principal that ALL of science is built on top of... and fallabalism makes the concept of fixed, unquestionable "proof" 100% impossible (and thank god for that, because it's also the mechanism that makes science useful and honest).
But if science DID work the way Kyle thinks, it would function near-identically to every single religion- ie Claiming some fixed, unchangable set of "Proven Truths" that no-one can ever question (or else what does "proven" mean, if they're STILL open to question, after being "proved"?).
Ironically, if science actually DID work the way he claims, that'd utterly lock FE out of EVER, even in THEORY, having even the slightest possibility of ever becoming real science; Sure, as things are, FE has about as much chance at becoming valid science, as the idea that the horse are secretly sheep on stilts, anyway, so it's kinda moot... But at least now it's TECHNICALLY """possible""" (lol) that FE could (potentially, somehow, hypothetically... just go with it, OK?!?) produce some model (lol), that makes specific, real-world predictions (lol) more accurately and more comprehensiively than the globe model does (lmao)... Which (if this bizarre scenario actually COULD happen, somehow) would FORCE science to accept FE over the globe... But this insanely-unlikely-but-TECHNICALLY-"possible" scenario can ONLY be even a technical possibilty, because science DOESN'T "prove" things, and is open to EVERYTHING potentially being questioned...
But if science DID "prove" things, some of the FIRST stuff that would become the "Proven Facts" (ie "unquestionable dogma") that Kyle wants, would be Newtonian AND Einstinian Gravity, Newton's Laws of motion, and the heliocentric model (stuff that specific, numeric, accurate, real-world predictive power have "proved" hundreds of times daily, for 3 or 4 centuries, now)... Which would 100% lock FE out of science, because FE's claiming the opposite to the the most "proven" ideas in all of science... But lucky for Kyle, he's a clueless moron with no idea what he's taking about, and science explicitly, deliberately, necesarily DOESN'T EVER "prove" things, and explicitly garauntees that EVERY scientific claim is ALWAYS open to question. So Kyle's free to try to (emphasis on "TRY") scientifically establish that earth is flat, or that the fifth fundamental force of physics is Pony frienship-magic, or that all cats are secretly just upside-down dogs, or literally ANY goofball made-up nonsense, that he sets his little heart on... Because the ABSENCE of EVEN THE POSSIBITLITY of "proof" in science, allows him to that...
Kyle is SO utterly clueless, that he's arguing AGAINST one of the very few principles in science, which even the most mainstream scientists will admit, requires that science can never just COMPLETELY, 100% dismiss even the most kooky, jabbering-mad outsider beliefs like FE- Even when any reasonable person knows that everything from simple sunsets, to bottom-up obsurance of distant objects, to the two, counter-rotating celestial poles/hemispheres, to the fact that FE's essentially 2d "model" SHOULD be so simple that a halfway-bright middle-schooler would be able to make to make it work... Yet NOBODY can make it work even 1/100th as well as the globe, are all EFFECTIVELY "absolute proof" that flat earth is 100% impossible... But the principle of fallability requires us to say "OK, well I guess maybe there's SOME infinitessably-small chance, that every single one of the working scientists who do USEFUL WORK with their demontrable, real-world knowledge of science, are somehow ALL WRONG... and instead, a bunch of borderline-illiterate, ideologocally-motivated, super-duper-woke yoga teachers, meth addicts and cult members actually COULD, maybe, possibly, conceivably, could be right... so I guess we have to leave the door open, just a tiny crack, just in case that's true..." And what does Kyle do?!? he says "No!!! I demand you SHUT that door, and lock me out of having ANY tiny, miniscule shot at influencing science!!!"
See, this is one of the things that makes science so beautiful- It's a SELF-correcting mechanism. It just stands back, and lets the idiots lock THEMSELVES out of science...
Brilliant post Bacon... thanks
Science doesn’t deal with philosophy. Your entire premise is faulty. That’s a fundamental flaw in how people approach science in my opinion. How we perceive reality doesn’t change it.
Thank you. I was having similar thoughts but didn't feel up to trying to verbalize them.
Supposing we've developed a hypothesis. We use it to predict an outcome. It works. Other people try it. It works again and again. It's generally accepted as a theory.
We use it 1 million times and 1 million times it correctly predicts the outcome. But there is always the _possibility_ something different may happen on the 1 million and 1st attempt.
Supposing something strange does happen. Is our theory suddenly invalid?
No. At this point it's safe to say something was likely wrong in our use of it in that particular case. So we investigate all kinds of things that might have gone wrong (faulty input, faulty measuring device, etc.). Chances are we'll find human error in that particular prediction.
But on the small chance we don't (the orbit of Mercury), we step back a bit from the current theory and start asking probing questions. Eventually some clever person comes up with General Relativity and we push it through the testing process, etc.
Does Einstein mean Newton was wrong and we now throw out Newton's gravitational theory? No. It still works fine for the vast majority of cases. Newton is not wrong. He is just not 100% right. He is, figuratively speaking, 99.99% right. Einstein, on the other hand, is 99.9999% right.
Eventually someone will probably propose a new theory that turns out to be 99.999999% right.
We may never reach 100%. Does that mean we "believe" in these theories? Or can we confidently say that we KNOW them to be correct?
I maintain that we don't have to take General Relativity on faith. We KNOW it is right, even if it is only 99.9999% right and not 100% right.
@@angrydoggy9170 I agree that how we perceive reality doesn't change it. But philosophy (philo "love of" + sophy "wisdom") and science are very much connected. We'll have to get into the many possible definitions of philosophy. It's such a broad word it can be made to mean just about whatever people want it to mean. I won't get into that here. Whole books have been written on the subject.
But within the realm of scientific research (another term requiring detailed definitions) there is an important place for a narrow branch of philosophy. I won't try to spell it out here. But I will refer you to Encyclopedia Brittanica, as good a place to start as any, and quote you a short passage.
_philosophy of science, the study, from a philosophical perspective, of the elements of scientific inquiry. This article discusses metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical issues related to the practice and goals of modern science._
A few names to look into - Bertrand Russell, Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper.
I'm not endorsing or disagreeing with any of these authors or their ideas. I mention them as prominent voices in the discussion.
@@fepeerreview3150 Earth is a globe..any problem with it?
Kyle seems to deliberately misunderstand. It's frustrating listening to him. He needs to know that faith is believe in the absence of evidence. If there is evidence there cannot be faith.
You guys basically talked past each other for an hour and a half.
The core issue is simply that you're using different definitions of the key words. It's really just that simple.
I'd like to invite you both to appear together with me sometime to "prove" that we can resolve it with an active mediator.
I'd definitely watch that!
Pretty much. If definitions are agreed upon before discussing this topic there's no problem at all. The colloquial definition of proof isn't the scientific definition of proof, even though the words are identical.
When Kyle says he can prove his cat eats food, he's relying on his senses and equipment such as cameras, for example, to do so. But that assumes his senses and equipment are not fooling him. We already know our senses are limited. For instance, we can't see UV or infrared light. Therefore, it is possible that our senses are not telling us the truth. This is another reason why we can't prove something conclusively. There is always a small chance, however remote, that we are wrong.
Max Headroom was huge in the US in the Eighties (notice the influence in Back to the Future Part II as an iconic symbol of the Eighties), but it died away just as suddenly as it appeared.
_Kyle needs to stop putting his words in other people's mouths._
There's a normal thing people do, where we repeat what the other person said, to digest it mentally, acknowledge we heard them and let them know we want to make sure we understood them. It's a good impulse.
What Kyle does looks like that on the surface but in fact it's something else entirely. He pretends to be listening. He repeats what you said, but not exactly. He twists the words around to give it the meaning he wants. Often it is to set up a strawman. Often it is to make it sound as if you said something you didnt', something that supports his fallacious arguments.
This is some kind of subtle passive/aggressive behavior on his part. It is fundamentally dishonest, deceptive and I'm convinced it is very, very intentional.
This is in large part why I don't like him. He's not blatantly, openly ugly and vulgar, the way Oakley is. He's not hateful, the way Dubay is. But he comes across as really sneaky and manipulative.
Indeed, hence the sudden anger when he was cornered by his own definitions and didn't want to talk with the interlocutor again.
It seems that Kyle has realized he has no evidence so he is trying to define flat earth into existence.
This was hard to follow with the tech difficulties and Kyle's stupidity.
I think it is OBS issues.
And don’t forget the repeat overdub of Kyle’s speech against falsification in science by abusing the usage of the word proof.
The "Home Depot Socket Proof" doesn't stand up. Its a great theory, but I could build him a socket that would give him a hell of a jolt without being plugged in, as long as there was enough space inside to hide a large high voltage capacitor.
So what was Kyle's answer? He doesn't really like to answer. He just likes to try to redefine things.
That’s his specialty-dictionary wars. It’s just like Bible wars or Qur’an wars. Dictionaries and religious texts say many different things about many different things, so picking and choosing from among them is Kyle’s strategy. But just because a dictionary defines a term one way doesn’t mean that that’s the only valid usage, or sense, of the term. It’s important to teach everyone that words almost always have multiple senses and that context is crucial.
Max Headroom actually had a pretty big profile in the 80s in the US, there was a very cool network TV show following from the events of the British special, he had shows on MTV and featured in advertisements for New Coke and others, and he appeared in Paranoimia, by the Art of Noise, which was played on MTV quite a bit! You have to be an American of a certain age to remember this stuff... :)
Kyle's example of does science prove things and finding out "if cats eat food" is bad, because science doesn't investigate trivialities such as "is there a point in time where it appears that some cat ate food". Why did I express it in such a convoluted way? That's the thing -- using that example science would be more interested in things such as "is it generally true that all cats naturally eat food, if not coerced to do so" and proving such a general statement is much more harder, and actually you can't; one could argue that there's always a possibility that there is some external coercion, modern cats have changed etc. Of course it would be silly to assume, but philosophically not impossible.
Science doesn't prove things, because then nobody would be ever able to correct it, and in science you always have room for improvement, even if current theory works 100%. At least in principle, some other model might work better. A proof is something that is super reliable, something you should be able to bet your life on. A proof that there is an infinite amount of primes is such a strong thing that anybody would be silly to question it, it would only show they don't understand the proof. This is why science only offers strong models which explain a phenomena, and they tend to be falsifiable.
Now, I give that there are so strong differences in natural and say, social sciences that sometimes I wonder if the latter should be even called science, because e.g. sociological theories cannot be even falsified, but it still doesn't mean you can just pull up stuff from your *** and call it a theory.
Edit: I recall there's this thing called "formal sciences" or "rational sciences" in which you can prove things (logic, mathematics)
Edit2: Kyle and flerfers should understand that dictionary definitions of words change with time, just like natural language changes. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. In science many words have more precise meanings, which are often _defined_ instead of just _described_. DICTIONARY IS NOT A SCIENCE TEXT BOOK GODDAMMIT
Edit3: Oh, seems like they almost dealed with the issue "applies to this cat" vs "applies to all cats". At that point it should have been discussed that example is bad, because science is all about finding out general, ideally universal rules, not individual instances
Max Headroom was big in the US back in 1988 or so.
So, Kyle got his misunderstandings and the bible... what a waste of time.
This "discussion" is stupid. The whole "science doesn't prove things" is just two parties using the same word in different contexts. Kyle keep bouncing back and forth between the scientific definition and the colloquial definition. Utterly asinine. This is why you have to agree on definitions beforehand. I could just as easily claim that fire doesn't burn things because "to burn" is the act of copying a CD/DVD.
Also, the dictionary is DESCRIPTIVE and is not PRESCRIPTIVE. Meaning that it will tell you how people are using the word, not how it should be used. Language has nuance. So arguing from a dictionary is only hurting Kyle's point; sticking to what the book says is preventing Kyle from understanding what Mr. S is actually saying.
Kyle knows what Mr Sensible is saying. He's just doing what flerfs do - in the absence of any evidence for their crackpot claims, they knowingly lie and obfuscate.
The only Proof Kyle knows is "120 Proof!"
I wonder whether Kyle's local source of his favourite brand of '120 Proof' asks him any question other than "How many gallons today, Kyle?"
Anyone who has been door-stepped by mormon missionaries quickly recognises the techniques Kyle uses. Mormons will "nice" you all day, seem to agree with your points while not actually listening to your arguments and not changing their mind one iota. Despite the "common ground" nonsense, they are there to preach and nothing else. It's the very definition of disingenuous.
Kyle uses a dictionary instead of a degree to try and argue around science again.
If Kyle had actually been to university he'd know perfectly well that universities don't use dictionaries to teach.
It's just plain wrong that he continues to use one as the basis for all of his arguments.
As a game designer, I know that a 'normal map' is a special 2D texture comprised of blue and anti-blue gradations, that tell light how to bounce off a surface, meaning I can make a perfectly level surface seem bumpy and coarse without physically adding those details to it - which saves a large amount of graphical processing power.
Find *_Normal Map_* in the dictionary Kyle. I'll wait.
Also congrats to your guests who pointed out that _proof_ is entirely based on belief - a theory can be believed to be proven or not believed to be proven but that doesn't change how true it is. Ultimately, believing that a theory has been proven is not particularly damaging in most cases but it's a personal position and not useful in scientific enquiry.
WHO REMEMBERS THE MAX HEADROOM COKE MACHINES?
I'm not in the habit of accepting the Bible as evidence for anything except the state of mind of the people who wrote its various parts, which was often behind better informed people even in their time. However, there's nothing in the argument that "the Bible says Pi = 3, so the Bible is wrong". 3 was actually near enough in terms of how people used numbers at the time. Numbers over 20 were usually just approximations (when not lies for propaganda purposes) and they didn't do fractions beyond a half, a third, or a quarter and even those were also guessy if the total was more than 20 or so.
As we always say, it's not scientific text book. It's a collection of ancient documents reflecting the perceptions of the people who wrote it. Oh, and god is a construct of the human mind.
The incorrect value of π is mostly mentioned in discussions with biblical inerrantists, for obvious reasons.
got an idea on this density displacement due to things falling downwards "since gravity doesnt exist"... if we take away gravity and go with density stuff, there are some things that show up that makes the density do some strange stuff..
For example you have a large bowl and add water to it, as it fills, the water takes on the shape of the bowl and creates a flattish surface, the flatish surface occurs due to gravity, if you turn off gravity, the water would lay into the bowl and create a layer of water evenly in depth on the inside of the bowl. It would be like having the larger bowl containing the water and a smaller bowl shaping the surface into a bowl shape.... if you work off of density only, the water would want to maintain an even depth or thickness to the interior of the bowl, it would be say an inch deep from the bottom to the surface, from the sides towards the interior as an inch deep. Density being the only driving force to shape the water, the water wouldnt want to create areas of higher or lower pressures, it would even out creating the same pressure throughout the volume of water, if you added oil to the water it would form another bowl shaped mass of liquid matching that of the water... another analogy is a bubble of soapy water, which is basically a sphere of air surrounded by soapy water, the air would be creating an equally stable pressure in all directions against the soapy water and the air outside is pressing against the soapy water in all directions making it a sphere
Even the test for whether cats eat food is not that simple. Defining what a cat is may be the relatively easy part, but how do you define food? Is it something that can be eaten by any animal ever? Or is it food recognized as such by human beings? If so, if we present a pickled plum to a cat and it won't recognize it as edible, do we then conclude that cats don't eat food because _we_ would eat it?
Really, flerfers have such a simplistic view of science it's laughable.
I love that every flat earther needs debate there nonsense topic so they can't stick to a script and word salad over anything. I'd love for one them to get grilled with questions about their flat earth
1:09:46 Tussk in chat: AGREED!
Max headrroom (played by matt frewer) was developed into a tv series in 1987. It was brilliant. I really cant believe you've never seen it
Mr. S, regarding the "cat food example", a good alternative would be that we're living in a simulation. Like characters in a video game, we might be living our lives oblivious to the fact that none of our reality is real. As improbable as this sounds, it is still a possibility. So Kyle may cut open the cat's stomach and find the food inside, but it's all just a simulation!
I heard you say you don't buy the simulation hypothesis. That's fine, but by your own admission, remember that you should be open to any and all possibilities that could potentially overthrow your conclusion.
Wait, what? I definitely know who Max Headroom was, and it definitely played here in the 1980s... and I'm as middle of the USA as possible! Anyway, moving on...
Re: the "Proof that cats eat food" bit.... there's always the possibility, isn't there, that God could have transported the food directly from the bowl and created an illusion that the cat ate it. How's that one sound, eh, Kyle?
Wow. I can't believe kyle came out the gate and immediately compared himself to Jesus. This flat earth cult is truely ridiculous.
No, I don't mind the dropped frames. It's like watching Tele-snaps of a classic Doctor Who! And I especially like the faces you make at 1:28:20 and 1:28:30
If gravity was real, you would think it would be observable on earth between different objects, thereby making a plumb bob completely ineffective, especially next to mountains. Yet it’s not observable or measurable at all and plumb bobs always point straight down without any deviation. Hmm 🤔
Plumb bobs always point down because that’s where the center of mass is on the planet. A mountain doesn’t compare in mass to the planet that’s why things fall down instead of sideways.
@@brianvillage5
There would still be some deflection. Otherwise, how does the gravity of the moon supposedly affect the tides if the earths gravity is so much stronger. See, this is why none of it makes sense.
@@brianvillage5
Also, if the passing of the moon affects the tides, why doesn’t it affect the plumb bob at all?
I sort of agree with Kyle in that the old definition of "prove" meant to test (I learnt this from a Terry Pratchett novel iirc), but the meaning has changed. There's no point using out of date definitions against new ones. This like Bev with "level". Pointless argument
1:13:15 Now THIS is very weird!!!!!!! What happened Mr S??😲
German here, I *do* know Max Headroom. I didn‘t know he was British, though.
he isn't British though.
Max Headroom was played by Matt Frewer, and he's American-Canadian. The original show was a British production, but then ABC made a TV series out of it.
@@icansciencethat He was British, though. The nationality of the actor portraying Max Headroom is irrelevant.
@@andysmith1996 what makes him British? I don't recall him having an English accent.
@@icansciencethat They didn't specify a nationality for the character in the programme, so if you want to assume that Carter wasn't British, then you're free to. But I'm going to go with the fact that it was a British TV programme about a journalist working for a British TV company in Britain and that there was no reason for them to make the main character a foreigner.
@@andysmith1996 You inspired me to dig a bit more. Let me suggest the CZcams video called "The Crazy Bizarre History of Max Headroom: TV Star, Icon, Pitch Man, Pirate"
TL;DW: Max Headroom was allegedly created specifically as a parody of an American TV VJ/talking head. Apparently, they specifically sought out an American actor to play the part. He was created in Britain, but he was created to be a parody of an American.
What do you think?
Kyle is a child with a childs belief in what science should be and it seems he wants ti demand all science should be dumbed down juat so he can understand it. Well done Mr S. Youre very patient with this fool.
Also every a flerf uses a dictionary, get them to look up the definition of earth, gravity etc. Its always fun watching them panic about that 😂
*Your PC issue:*
- If Discord was using 25%+ cpu, then that was killing your pc. That's how you find the issue, you sort by "cpu" in task manager.
Discord might have Hardware Acceleration enabled, that uses a ton of cpu and you need to disable it in its settings. I NEVER use that in ANY program/software/app, and I have a beast cpu! So disable it in all your streaming programs.
- Also, sometimes it might be the antivirus, it started scanning in the background... And this too can slow down a pc like that, especially if you're streaming.
We knew Max Headroom in Finland in the '80ies :) But I think Mr. Sensible version was much better, seriously!
Is it just me... or, does anyone else think this guy sounds like JMTruth?
I liked the first 10 minutes when we couldn't hear Kyle. He never has anything of substance to say anyhow
My previous comment was removed, maybe for good. I lost my control there, I admit.
I just wish.. people could stop playing with words. They are means of communication; what matters is semantics. We know that science has particular interpretation of "proof", so it does not make sense to take dictionary as God's word on how it is defined (it is not; again, dictionaries are prescriptive and mostly in colloquial sense).
Kyle: sorry, but I can't believe you have read any single book on epistemology or philosophy of science. Your lack of understanding on those very fundamentals proves it, pun intended.
Being wrong is ok. But being willingly ignorant is not. Please read those books, visit say, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and read few relevant pages on knowledge and epistemology to get started. Not just few first chapters but whole articles. It's an excellent resource.
Flat earthers entire argument is usually based around semantics or a dictionary definition that doesn't apply
The thing is, establishing definitions and context is hugely important to ant scientific discussion. Nearly every paper and article and inquiry begins with such.
The problem is that flerfs deliberately ignore or misrepresent context in most of their arguments. They're more than happy to discuss definitions but will only ever be happy to discuss it in a single, preselected, context
@@cuross01 you're right, but that is the difference with academic discussions and colloquial chats. When you need precision, you either define terms as well as you can (which takes time) or you assume the other is familiar with the terms. TBH I'd love to have ISO standards for some terms and an index that is super fast to browse; would help a lot with discussions like this.
One of the many big issues with Kyle is that he thinks dictionaries contain accurate, scientific vocabulary. Sometimes they do, but they are still not prescriptive.
Kyle is so black-and-white in his thinking...
According to him, if science doesn't prove anything, it is faith-based. No, Kyle, it is not. It's evidence-based. A scientific theory is an explanation for something with an overwhelming amount of evidence. We don't need faith, because we don't accept them as a universal truth. We accept them as our current best understanding given the evidence that we have.
Furthermore, "but this dictionary uses the word 'proof' to define 'evidence'" is also an extremely weak claim. A regular dictionary is meant to explain colloquial terms, not scientific terms. You're using the wrong tool for the job.
Here's an analogy: what if we debate over what a "group" is in mathematics? The online dictionary doesn't contain the appropriate definition, but it does contain some definitions for the word "group". Would you try to claim that a mathematical group is "any collection or assemblage of persons or things"? Because it isn't.