Abduction, which may seem to the inattentive eye to be a mere case of "shooting in the dark," is logically worthwhile because it is not possible to "abduct" a fact without, invariably, facing two premises qualified to play the roles of conclusion and of one premise of that which would be, were the conclusion of the abduction the missing premise to complete the triad, a deductive syllogism. Thus, the conclusion of the abduction is a logically surprising fact, yet it does not constitute a logically inexplicable or ridiculous move.
Fishing in a Sea of Innovation?
... perhaps, but taking Eekels' \cite{eekels_fundamentals_2000} advice, that is, "under the guidance of methodology."