Yes it does.

Working backwards from a desired claim to generate only supporting facts would reinforce only that claim. It’d be like the police only investigating the one usual suspect and refusing to look for evidence that did not pertain to that suspect.

Working forwards from gathering facts to a conclusion may lead to the same place or somewhere entirely different.

The use of the term "desired claim" strikes me as unreasonable and unfair in this instance. No one is happy with two airliner crashes, it was no ones "desired claim". Unfortunately these crashes are what initiated the inquiry into the certification of this model airliner.

In my opinion, the crashes are not facts with which anyone could reasonably argue. I don't think there's room to argue that maybe the crashes were unrelated, for instance. Given that we can all agree that the crashes occurred and were caused by a similar fault (in this case MCAS), I think it's entirely reasonable to "work back from there" and figure out _why_ this airliner was certified as safe and through that exercise discover what changes can be made to that certification process to prevent other dangerous airliners from being certified.

desired claim isn't that two airplanes crashed. The desired claim is who is at fault.

I don't know if that is really a desired claim, but both sides in politics have their desired claim to support whatever solution better fits their desired end.

This isn't some open ended research problem. It's an investigation into something that went glaringly and obviously wrong. Of course you start from what went wrong and work backwards from there. If you didn't you might end up in a different place altogether which would serve no purpose. That's what a congressional inquiry is for: to establish why a particular thing went the way it did.

All of science starts with something you're trying to prove or disprove. It can work either way.

> Working backwards from a desired claim to generate only supporting facts would reinforce only that claim.

It’s called parallel construction. When police use it, it’s grounds to get your whole case thrown out (for very valid reasons... if you can prove it).

No, that's when you find new, plausible evidence to support the thing that you weren't allowed to do in the first place so you can pretend you didn't break the law while gathering evidence. This has nothing to do with the case at hand.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

Scientists regularly work backwards from a conclusion, though it's usually called a hypothesis in that case. It's still very much an accepted way of doing science.

It also seems reasonable to assume that such an extreme situation is the result of a broken system. The tricky think is to identify what exactly is broken.

'Beyond a reasonable doubt' works because the system should generate doubts as well. There might be two theories that are equally likely, but if you only have facts to support theory one without even having thought of the other theory that might still lead to a wrongful indictment.

yes it does, it's called confirmation bias. Not that I endorse their claim as well.