I think that it is important that people understand the difference between Inductive Reasoning and Deductive Reasoning and why Metabunk relies on Deductive Reasoning in examining claims.
I disagree. I think a lot of what we do here is more commonly abductive reasoning, briefly mentioned at the end of your post. Although I don't think their explanation is very good.
But really "reasoning" is sometimes too high level a descriptor for what goes on. Quite often it's just "fact checking".Abductive reasoning usually starts with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations, according to Butte College. It is based on making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation.
Abductive reasoning is useful for forming hypotheses to be tested. Abductive reasoning is often used by doctors who make a diagnosis based on test results and by jurors who make decisions based on the evidence presented to them.