There is a considerable confusion in the English logical terminology as regards inferences that are, or are taken to be, non-deductive. Notably, it seems that the senses of abduction and induction are often garbled or confused.

It seems only Peirce, who was a great logician with a penchant for logical terminology, kept them more or less sensibly apart the last hundred years or so.

This is my reason to include the term eduction in this dictionary. One can find the term in the OED and sometimes in such Eng.Lit. where the protagonist is supposed to sound learned or ironical.

The 19th Century scientist and philosopher Whewell liked it and used it. I include the term because it seems to me that the current terminology, as it tends to be used, concerning abduction and induction is often misleading, in that what are abductions - explanations - are called inductions; what are inductions - confirmations or disconfirmations - are declared to be generalizations; while Aristotle's "epagoge", that seems best translated by abduction, is usually translated as "induction".