@Jim, it is getting off topic. Regardless, I think you have the wrong view of how scientists operate. Either that or we are using very different languages, so much so that we are talking past each other.
You seem to think that scientists rank the certainty of their theories based on whether they used deductive, inductive, or abductive inference. In reality, what scientists do is use Bayesian inference, which is a mathematically rigorous way to determine the probability of a theory being true given the evidence at hand. The probability that is outputted from Bayesian inference is what I refer to when I say stuff like “as close to 100% as is possible in the sciences”.
Second, the idea of “direct” evidence is somewhat ill-defined in physics. I did not appreciate this fact, but @dga471 and others corrected me in this thread, and I became convinced that this is the case.