I find this an interesting quote since I've always assumed you start from a hypothesis to explain observed phonemenom or predicted phenomenon (in the case of some quantum equations for example.) I've never thought you start from a position of knowing and work backwards to explain why you know - that seems to be the religious approach?
Great find! Yes I did start with a quasi-hypothesis. That is because there is no cut and dry transition from observation and hypothesis which you seem to be purporting. I personally want to move away from the rigid way the scientific method is presented. It's stifling. I want to move away from this: