I will only comment on this part for now, because I have to go to work soon.
The problem with pseudoscience is that, because it is not based on any sort of evidence, it is impossible to counter point-by-point. A scientist such as myself only has one reality to describe, while anti-science activists can invent an infinite number of lies. Anti-science activists also use a liberal amount of scientific jargon--usually incorrectly--but their target audience is unlikely to understand it, or to recognize the misuse of scientific terminology. Furthermore, how can I point at a specific lie or half-truth and provide a reference? The very fact that it is a lie or half-truth means that it is *not* supported by any evidence-based reference; if I were to follow the reference chain on any of those lies, they would lead, at best, to the originator of the lie. Most likely, the reference chain would lead nowhere.
I do not know if you are a scientist, but I certainly know that you do not understand the difference between science and philosophy of science.
What I wrote cannot be pseudo-science, because it does not claim to be science. It is philosophy of science, epistemology, so it is not science itself, but *about* science. That’s what I am, a philosopher of science, that’s what I graduated in.
Have you ever heard of Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend? Ever heard of epistemology?
You go on about anti-science activists, but that has nothng to do with my article. You are obviously referring to other people and do not address what I wrote except with insulting terms like “lies” and such.
Again, a lie - do I really have to explain these things to a self-professed “scientist”? - is something intended to deceive, in analogy with pseudo-science pretending to be science.
Children always talk about people telling them lies, adults simply and intelligently say that they disagree with a certain opinion, if that is the case as it seems to be now.
In addition, that pseudo-science cannot be countered point-by-point is a groundless statement going against evidence, since it has been done innumerable times.
Indeed, specific lack of evidence is an argument against specific pseudo-scientific claims. The operative word here, though, is “specific”. Just to say: “It’s a lie”, although might be well received in a kindergarten playground, would not be accepted by any reasonable person capable of rational discussion.
You can’t have it both ways: either you can counter an argument, in which case you should, or you cannot, in which case how can you possibly say that it’s fallacious? You have fallen into a paradox.