Most of my comments are abductive reasoning but I call it breadth first reasoning or fearless ignorance, where an analogy potentially has a similar superficial

Most of my comments are abductive reasoning but I call it breadth first reasoning or fearless ignorance, where an analogy potentially has a similar superficial "shape," and that shape could be a homomorphism in more formal contexts that gives you a fast path to hypothesis about what must also exist if the analogy were consistent. It's irritating to people with depth in a field because it ignores their concrete tools and experience and presents them with hypothesis' without any direct experience. Cranks usually think abductively as well, and what makes the difference is enough physical domain competence to use it well instead of just baffling other laymen and annoying more knowledgable people. If I'm interpreting correctly.