Abductive reasoning results from the abduction of one’s reason.
Couldn’t resist the quip. To speak more seriously: There is deduction, which from true premises always yields true conclusions. There is Bayesian reasoning, which from probabilities derives probabilities. There is no other form of reasoning. “Induction” and “abduction” are pre-Bayesian gropings in the dark, of no more account than the theory of humours in medicine.
I am not sure what your definition of Bayesian reasoning is, but I personally think of:
Deduction as somewhat equivalent to mathematical logic (including probabilistic logic and other sub-types of logic).
Induction as somewhat equivalent to inferential statistics.
I am not sure where most people would place Bayes’ theorem itself, but Bayesian statistics is usually considered a subfield of (or rather an approach to) inferential statistics.
Abductive reasoning results from the abduction of one’s reason.
Couldn’t resist the quip. To speak more seriously: There is deduction, which from true premises always yields true conclusions. There is Bayesian reasoning, which from probabilities derives probabilities. There is no other form of reasoning. “Induction” and “abduction” are pre-Bayesian gropings in the dark, of no more account than the theory of humours in medicine.
I am not sure what your definition of Bayesian reasoning is, but I personally think of:
Induction as somewhat equivalent to inferential statistics.
I am not sure where most people would place Bayes’ theorem itself, but Bayesian statistics is usually considered a subfield of (or rather an approach to) inferential statistics.