The proof in science follows premises which often get confused by people.
This is not going to be simple to explain, but lets start.
Incorrect proof
Lets start with first explaining what isnt proof.
Example:
A causes B.
Conclusion: B exists, therefore A exists.
Its like saying:
On day when it rains, some of the ground will be wet.
Some of the ground is wet today, so it rained today.
This is false reasoning.
Ground can be wet because someone spilled water on it, because soil is usually naturally wet even when it isnt raining, because there is snow left from yesterday... and so on.
Just because A causes B, doesnt lead to conclusion that if B exists, A exists.
Thats because something other than A can also cause B.
The correct way is:
Only A causes B.
In this case, if B exists, A exists.
Another incorrect way of proving is:
A includes B.
B exists, therefore A exists.
This is a very wrong way of proof.
Thats because other things can include B too, and A is unproven to exist, so unproven to include B.
Its like saying:
On days when it rains, ground is wet.
Ground is wet today, so it rained.
The correct way, again, is:
Only A includes B and A must include B.
As long as something other than A can include B, existence of A is unproven.
As long as it is possible for A not to include B, as long as it is possible for B to exist without A, A is unproven.
Another incorrect way of proof is:
If A, then B.
B exists, so A exists.
For same reasons as before, this is incorrect.
Now, lets move to correct proof.
Correct proof
Lets look at first example:
Premise: If A, then B.
Conclusion: A exists, so B exists.
This is correct conclusion as long as premise is correct.
Other correct forms are:
If A exists, then B doesnt exist.
A exists, so B doesnt.
If A doesnt exist, B exists.
A doesnt exist, so B exists.
If A doesnt exist, B doesnt exist.
A doesnt exist, so B doesnt exist.
In all 3 cases, the existence or non-existence of A derermines existence or non-existence of B.
Second example:
Premise: If A, then B.
Conclusion: B doesnt exist, so A doesnt exist.
As long as premise is correct, conclusion is correct.
Third example:
Premise: If A, then B doesnt exist.
Conclusion: B exists, so A doesnt.
Correct conclusion.
Fourth example:
Premise: If A doesnt exist, then B exists.
Conclusion: B doesnt exist, so A exists.
Final example about "if" way of proof:
Premise: If A doesnt exist, then B doesnt exist.
Conclusion: B exists, therefore A exists.
Now lets move to inclusion proof.
First:
Premise: A includes B.
Conclusion: A exists, so B exists.
Second:
Premise: A includes that B doesnt exist.
Conclusion: A exists, so B doesnt exist.
Third:
Premise: Lack of A includes that B exists.
Conclusion: A doesnt exist, so B does.
Fourth:
Premise: Lack of A includes that B doesnt exist.
Conclusion: A doesnt exist, so B doesnt exist.
Other ways of proof are:
A includes B.
If B doesnt exist, then A doesnt.
Lack of A includes B.
If B doesnt exist, A exists.
A includes lack of B.
If B exists, A doesnt.
Lack of A includes lack of B.
If B exists, A exists.
Lets move onto proof by options.
There are:
Option 1
Option 2
One must be true and the other must be false. There are no other options. If one is true, the other is false.
Disproving option 1 proves option 2.
Disproving option 2 proves option 1.
Proving option 1 disproves option 2.
Proving option 2 disproves option 1.
Those are the standards of scientific proof, as taken from basic laws of logic.
Any questions, feel free to ask.
I felt the need to explain the difference between proof and non-proof, to clear up common logical errors which happen.
