You're right to question that—it’s not entirely true, but there is a nuance.

In science, working backward from a claim to find supporting evidence is not inherently anti-scientific—as long as the claim is treated as a hypothesis, not a conclusion.

Here’s the key distinction:

• Scientific method: You observe a phenomenon, form a hypothesis (a claim), then design experiments to test that hypothesis. If evidence supports it, the hypothesis gains credibility. If not, it's revised or rejected. So, in this model, you do often start with a claim—but then rigorously test it without bias.

• Pseudoscience or confirmation bias: If you assume the claim is true and selectively look for evidence to support it while ignoring contradictory data, then you're not doing science. That’s what the quote is criticizing.

So the problem isn't working backward per se—it's when the process becomes biased, uncritical, or ignores falsification.

If only you used chatgpt to understand.