That is not what is meant by deduction in science. Stop trying to play teacher; you are not qualified. You're just latching onto words in people's posts and Google-pontificating blindly.
Tommy has provided the correct definition of deductive argument.
A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be deductively valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises are true. This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. (Internet Encyclopedyia of Philosophy
This is the definition of deductive logic that you will find everywhere. What is yours? What logic is the "scientific deductive logic" according you? I never heard of another deductive logic.
Indeed I can't possibly imagine how I've managed to be successful for decades in my career without your personal guidance. Your incomparable wisdom shines like a beacon across the murky waves of an otherwise rudderless and confused body of professional scientists who may not yet have sipped from your cup brimming with erudition.
That said, you changed "reasonable deduction" to "reasonable speculation." And you changed my argument, from the activities that constitute science, to what makes for a good research report in a journal (thus begging your premise). In my estimation, you've responded to somewhere between two-thirds and three-fourths of my posts by rewriting what I said or otherwise missing/dodging the point.
I noticed you also omitted to answer my question regarding how often calling everyone else ignorant works for you in a debate. That was not rhetorical. It was a serious question, In order to formulate my next response, I will need to know how much of your following arguments will be -- as this one is -- based on bluff and bluster.
The part I highlighted, where you suddenly narrowed the scope of what your critics had to supply in order to refute you. I should have guessed you wouldn't know what was meant after you omitted to address the charge of misrepresenting the sciences that study where beliefs in gods come from.
To be more accurate, you recently said this
I told you what you were wrong about -- your idea to limit what can be called science only to that which appears in a search report in a scientific journal. All you've done since then is continue to beg that premise of your argument. If you're going to ask only for scientific articles that refute the idea that science occurs also outside research reports, then you're so wound up a a ball of your own assumptions that I have to agree with my colleagues when they say you are ill-equipped to debate your own beliefs.
They're not
my terms of a scientific publication. They are Oxford standard conditions. I suppose they have more authority than mine and yours. In any case, I am surprised that you consider them
mine. In what kind of review have you published that you don't know this?
There is no "reasonable logical deduction" in scientific language. Scientific logic is inductive, deductive, mathematical, set logic... None of them is used by Hawking. What you mean is reasonable inference. In science there is a correct deduction or there is not. You exchange scientific concepts for a concept of common ("reasonable") language that is more or less speculative. That's why I'm not changing your concept for another (straw man), but correcting a mistake of yours.
I say ignorant as many times as necessary when something fundamental is ignored in a debate. To make a mistake is one thing. Not knowing what science is and pretending to give lessons on what science is is something else.
My criterion to know if a subject has been treated by science is to go to the places where science is published with guarantees. In the same way that if I want to know how to learn in schools I go to a school. If you have another criterion, say it clearly and we will discuss it. If you dispense with scientific publications, how do you know that science has dealt with a particular subject? This question is not rhetoric. I have been doing it from the beginning without anyone having answered it. I do not think you have an answer.
Science is what is done following the scientific method, usually called hypothetical deductive. Of course, it is possible that someone has done scientific research and has not published it in a journal or a science publisher. It's rare, but it can happen. If you have news of any of them on the subject, you can inform us. I am not dogmatic and I am open to that possibility, although I believe it to be remote. Until now what has been presented here did not meet the requirements. Anyway, if the existence of God is a scientific issue they would be more than a scientific enquiry. Where are they?
Well, that is not how reality works.