Peirce's concept of 'abduction' is a form of reasoning that differs significantly from deduction and induction. Here's a breakdown of these three types of reasoning:

1. Deduction: This is a top-down approach where conclusions necessarily follow from premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. For example, if all humans are mortal (premise) and Socrates is a human (premise), then Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

2. Induction: This is a bottom-up reasoning process where generalizations are made based on specific observations. For instance, if you observe that the sun has risen in the east every day, you might conclude that the sun always rises in the east. However, this reasoning does not guarantee certainty; it’s based on probability.

3. Abduction: Peirce introduced abduction as a way of reasoning that generates the best possible explanation for a set of observations. It is often described as "inference to the best explanation." For example, if you find a wet sidewalk, you might abduce that it has rained recently, as this is a plausible explanation, even though it is not certain. Abduction is particularly useful in situations where you have incomplete information and need to make a reasonable assumption.

In summary, while deduction provides certainty, and induction offers probabilistic generalizations, abduction focuses on identifying the most likely explanation for a phenomenon. This makes abduction particularly relevant in scientific inquiry and everyday problem-solving, where uncertainty is often present.

For further reading on Peirce's logic and the role of abduction in reasoning, you can explore resources like Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or academic journals that discuss his theories in detail.