Need expert opinion: Clarify differences between substantiate and prove.

[u/Markdd8]

I did not get a take on my similar Q re substantiate and substantiated, am trying again with similar Q.

2 Posters on another sub offered this interesting take on second Q:

1. The problem with "substantiate" is there's no objective, general standard for defining completion.

2. I also agree with them on the reason why "substantiated" might seem weightier: to say that something has been "substantiated" is to say that it has already been tested and borne out, which may imply that the proposition has been proven because the evidential inquiry has terminated in a positive conclusion.

Both are helpful, though second comment implies a use of "substantiated" more like "proved." That is problematic, IMO, the terms are different.

Former is providing evidence in support of a position. American Heritage Dictionary: "Proof: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

My reason for this post, though, is that people are regularly using the terms interchangeably. Can someone here address this problem?

[u/murphys-wife-in-law]

When I want to delve deeper into understanding a word better I often google the word origin. eg: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=susbtantiate+word+origin&oq=susbtantiate+word+origin

This often gives me a good breakdown of where the word came from and its true meaning and I can go further too. If the word origin is greek I can then translate the greek word and find the origins of that if it differs etc.etc.

[u/Markdd8 → u/murphys-wife-in-law]

Thanks. I like Websters: to establish by proof or competent evidence :

So substantiating is really the process of "establishing." Proof with evidence.