My affeir with deliberation started in 2002, when I started a Ph.D. in biology. While I was reading the scientific literature and participated in conferences, I have noticed that I have difficulties following the logic of the scientific communication. When I tried to follow the logic from premiss to conclusions, it did not worked out. In order to see the logic in the scientific papers I have deepend my knowldge in logic, but yet, it seemd to me that scientific writings don't follow any roles of logic. Therefore I had read Popper's book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery". I noticed that the Popper's Demarcation crterion do work in science, but I still couln't find the logic itself in the scientific writings. The riddle had puzzled me, so I moved to the program of History and Philosophy of Science in Bar-Ilan university. There I was introduced to the constructionists writings on science. I thought their writings has critical nature, which was very helpful in unveiling the aura that science is a pure logical field, but they can did not explain the science I have experienced in my years at biology department. Therefore, I have set my self to try to explain science as I have experienced it. for four years I have devised a model of scientific reason. After four years, and nudge from the head of the program, I have started to show the model to researchers in philosophy. Most of them said it is interesting, but it is too new, and too wide, to be a Ph.D. thesis. I couldn't find anyone that will mentor me. So I left the academy to try to develop this model on my own.