A botched attempt by former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien in late 2002, demanding evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"Well, I don't know ... a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's been proven."
by BlastFurnace February 17, 2024
Get the Proof is a proof mug.A term used in the context of protection from a person who is considered destructive, similar to a "Bull in a China Shop". At the minimum, the individual should arrive with a warning label, or a full disclaimer with a disclosure form attached to their shirt.
by BonnieClyde1007 February 17, 2024
Get the Colletti-Proof mug.The philosophical and practical impossibility of providing evidence so absolute and universally acceptable that it compels belief in all rational observers, especially in social, ethical, or historical domains. What constitutes "proof" is itself a contested cultural construct, and the demand for impossible, frictionless proof is often a disingenuous tactic to maintain skepticism.
Example: Proving systemic racism. You can provide statistics on sentencing disparities, historical records, personal testimonies, and sociological studies. A skeptic will dismiss each as "correlation not causation," "anecdotal," "biased," or "theoretical." The Hard Problem of Proof is that no evidence can penetrate a worldview that redefines proof itself to preserve its assumptions.
by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026
Get the Hard Problem of Proof mug.The meta-fallacy where one side is forced to prove every assertion, back every claim, and satisfy every demand for evidence, while the other side can simply move goalposts, demand new sources, dismiss evidence as insufficient, and never provide anything themselves. The arbitrary burden of proof is the debate equivalent of one person carrying a piano while the other skips ahead, occasionally turning around to complain that the piano-carrier isn't keeping up. It's how conspiracy theorists can demand that scientists prove negatives (prove that vaccines don't cause autism, prove that the moon landing wasn't fake), while offering no proof for their own claims and dismissing any evidence against them as part of the conspiracy.
Example: "She was trapped under an arbitrary burden of proof. Every time she provided a source, he moved the sourcepost. Every time she met his standard, he raised it. After two hours, she'd provided twenty sources, and he'd provided zero. When she asked what he believed, he said 'I'm just asking questions.' The questions were infinite, the answers were never enough, and the burden was hers alone."
by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026
Get the Arbitrary Burden of Proof mug.The principle that proofs operate in two modes: absolute proofs (demonstrations that establish truth beyond any reasonable doubt, in any framework) and relative proofs (demonstrations that establish truth within a particular system, for a particular audience, under particular assumptions). The law acknowledges that some proofs are universally compelling—mathematical proofs that follow from axioms, logical proofs that are valid in any system. Other proofs are context-dependent—legal proofs that meet standards of evidence, scientific proofs that satisfy peer review, everyday proofs that convince specific audiences. The law of absolute and relative proofs reconciles the ideal of proof as conclusive with the reality that proof is always for someone, somewhere, under some standards.
Example: "They argued about whether he'd proven his case. Absolute proofs: none—no mathematical demonstration, no logical necessity. Relative proofs: plenty—evidence that would convince a jury, arguments that would persuade a reader, data that would satisfy a reviewer. The law of absolute and relative proofs said: he'd proven it relatively, not absolutely. They agreed to disagree on whether that was enough."
by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 16, 2026
Get the Law of Absolute and Relative Proofs mug.The principle that proofs exist on a spectrum between absolute and relative, with infinite gradations and multiple dimensions. Under this law, a proof isn't simply valid or invalid, conclusive or inconclusive—it has spectral properties: strength in some dimensions (logical necessity), weakness in others (empirical support), and different force for different audiences. The law of spectral proofs recognizes that proof is not binary but continuous, that what counts as proof varies across domains (mathematics, law, science, everyday life), and that the question isn't "is this a proof?" but "where on the spectrum of proof does this demonstration fall?" This law is essential for understanding why some proofs convince everyone and others only convince those who already agree.
Law of Spectral Proofs Example: "She evaluated his argument using spectral proofs, mapping it across dimensions: logical validity (high), empirical support (medium), rhetorical force (high for some audiences, low for others), contextual fit (depends on assumptions). The spectral coordinates explained why the proof convinced her colleagues but not her critics. The law didn't resolve the disagreement, but it showed where it lived."
by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 16, 2026
Get the Law of Spectral Proofs mug.