What is a proof?

[justin]

That's deductive logic. Not deductive proof.

It is a deductive proof using deductive logic
The concept is deductive logic
the specific example is a proof (of the conclusion)

No the proof or lack proof is needed before you can claim the premise to be true or false. The premises would be true because we can use evidence to give insight on truth whether true or false. Those statements become proof for a claim once back up with evidence. Deductive logic is not technically used for proof but for right reasoning. So proof must be established before hand of logic hence to why i made previous statement.

---

deductive proof isnt usefull


I use rational critizism because it is.

Rational criticism would be the same as deductive proof technically. Deduce would mean to reduce or breakdown and criticism would doubt the doubt able which would be used to break it down to it's truth (or lack of). Rationalizing would be just using logical thought which logical thought demands (in deductive) proof of premises.