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.