Yes. Abductive reasoning is all fun and games, until one places believe in the "educated guesses": abductive reasoning is a technique to jump to ranked hypotheses, not to (theoretical, epistemic) conclusions - it would be fallacious to use it otherwise.
Sure, it is one key aspect of decision making, of the role of the bounded economic agent, of the analyst applying Bayes to give advice - of the gambler placing bets on a sheerly practical need.
Not only hypoteses of minor ranking can still be truthful and productive: sometimes criteria adopted for the computation can have largely accidental aspects ("- John won the lottery // - Pah, winning is so improbable // - Well he did"; "We selected a good candidate // - Mah, don't get me started about interviewers // - Well...").
Which does not change facts a tiny shard. The argumental level is in the epistemic mode, not in the aletic.
"It seems like A". "Yes but humans are biased". "Ok, it probably still seems like A".
Having less reasons to believe A does not imply having more reasons to disbelieve A.