system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What is the difference between proof and evidence?

Is proof always deductive and evidence always inductive? Or is it something else?
gpt
Context always matters, philosophy talks about a large amount of different topics, so if in doubt you should always try to figure out how a specific article or book use words. But if nothing else is specified there, a standard way to use those words is to say evidence for X if we mean anything that provides us with *some* reason to accept X, and proof for X if we mean something that establishes the truth of X. 

On this account it makes sense to weigh evidence for and against X and it's completely intelligible to have evidence for and against X - some reasons to think X and some reasons to think not-X. However, it usually doesn't make much sense to speak of proofs of X and disproofs of X at the same time.

> Is proof always deductive and evidence always inductive? Or is it something else?

Neither evidence nor proofs need to be arguments, so no.