Science follows a logic linear path that starts from a set of premises (definitions, axioms and evidence) and uses them to arrive at a conclusion (a scientific theory, or a judgement over a theory); in science, premises always determine the conclusion and never the other way around.
State Pseudoscience instead works exactly in reverse: it starts from a pre-conceived thesis (i.e.: a conclusion) that is a-priori assumed true, and then uses it as the basis to accept and/or reject specific evidence (the premise), through a backwards application of the definitions or the scientific method; the usual workflow of State Pseudoscience goes something like this:
At first, a pre-determined thesis is arbitrarily labeled as "the Science" with little supporting evidence. Then, the definition of "science" is applied in reverse to merely *assume* the existence or inexistence of evidence with no need for any actual research. The whole process can be summarized as follows:
"X is the Science."
"Science is based on evidence."
"Therefore, X is necessarily proven by evidence, and there can be no evidence of the opposite."
This is a glaring logical fallacy known as "Alice in Wonderland logic".
