The difference between something that is scientifically proven and something that is generally accepted as fact without much evidence behind it lies in the rigor of the process and the quality of the supporting evidence.
Scientific proof, in the strict sense, refers to the establishment of a hypothesis or theory through a systematic and rigorous process of observation, experimentation, data collection, analysis, and peer review. In science, proof is often expressed as a high degree of confidence based on the available evidence, but it does not imply absolute certainty.
Scientific proof requires that a claim or hypothesis is subjected to rigorous testing and scrutiny, and the evidence supporting it is independently verifiable and reproducible. The scientific method encourages skepticism, peer review, and the constant evaluation and refinement of ideas based on new evidence and observations.
On the other hand, something that is generally accepted as fact without much evidence behind it may be based on cultural, historical, or traditional beliefs, personal experiences, or anecdotal evidence. These beliefs or claims may lack rigorous scientific testing, empirical evidence, or a consensus among experts in the field.
It is important to note that scientific acceptance is not based on mere popularity or consensus, but on the accumulation of evidence from multiple sources and independent investigations. Scientific consensus is built upon a robust body of evidence and the convergence of multiple lines of inquiry.
In summary, scientific proof involves a systematic and evidence-based process of inquiry and testing, while something accepted without much evidence may rely on other forms of belief, tradition, or personal experiences. Scientific knowledge evolves through critical examination and the accumulation of evidence, while beliefs or claims without strong evidentiary support may persist due to cultural or subjective factors.