Well, just the same, it was a good question.
Consider why I might have answered you different than your expectation:
I showed you a test of mine and a possible explanation:
I do not infer well unless I am fluent in the pattern of thinking behind the expected inference.
You said the following:
“I am not a philosopher of science. I will look at this later when I have time. One question of course is whether abductivists deny the value of deduction, as I doubt. My question for you is what are you running from?”
Here is what I read:
Fact: I am not a philosopher of science.
Plan: I will look at this [I inferred that ‘this’ = the test I showed] later when I have time.
Question: Do abductivists deny the value of deduction.
Answer: I doubt they do.
Question: What are you running from?
I read the last question, which was unanswered, as the question for me to answer.
I did not concern myself with “Do abductivists deny the value of deduction?” because you answered it with “I doubt they do”.
I don’t know enough to agree or disagree and since you answered it with a personal opinion, the question appeared to be a rhetorical question, requiring nothing from me but my consideration of the question/answer set.
But I did not see the relationship (did not infer) between the answered rhetorical question regarding abductivist and deductivist and the final question, “What are you running from?”
The question floated in space, all by itself, untethered to anything I could see.
So I grounded it with an answer.
Also, my question about abductivism was genuine. I need education in this, as it appears to be related somehow to “my logic” as it were. But the materials I’ve found on it are lacking in explanatory power. Since you are currently my resident logician, I ask for assistance.