Of course, but the whole point of the trilemma is that absolute knowledge of absolute truth is impossible, not that we cannot axiomatically accept the utility of partial, approximate knowledge.
Also, while abductive reasoning is (a bit) different from inductive reasoning, they have the same underlying epistemological justification. In discussions of epistemology you often don't see abductive reasoning mentioned, as it falls under the general framework of inductive reasoning.
Well if absolute knowledge of absolute truth is impossible are you able to suggest a truth that could even be considered absolute? If not, bit of dangerous statement, isn't it?
That's the trilemma.
Second, the goals of abductive reasoning are different than philosophical or mathematical proof. Often we need to make decisions on incomplete information, and it's a philosophy to help one do so.
For example, juries are supposed to make a decision based on a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. Convictions would be rare if the standard were incontrovertible truth.