Consider the following arguments:

(1) It rains; therefore the soil is wet.

(2) X=5; therefore X+3=8.

Clearly, in the first case the combination "false premise, true
conclusion" is possible (it does not rain but someone has watered the
garden) whereas in the second it is impossible. The question is: Are
there, in natural sciences, arguments analogous to (2), that is,
incompatible with the combination "false premise, true conclusion"?
Are crucial arguments, e.g. the Carnot theorem and arguments based on
Einstein's 1905 light postulate, of the type (2)? See some development
in:

http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf

Pentcho Valev