Something that claims to be a legitimate science, but does not adhere to the strict guidelines of the scientific method as first developed by Galileo. That is, observation, experimentation, empirical evidence, and using that criteria to either support or disprove a theory. There are tricks to getting around even that, however. Cherry-picking the evidence to support a particular conclusion, for example, which global warming “scientists” are too often guilty of.
Add cause and effect to your list.
Operational aspects of science
The third level of discrimination is where most of the action between science and pseudoscience actually takes place, over what I earlier called the operational details of science. Getting these details right helps deliver useful causal explanations.
This is where battles are fought over what constitutes evidence, how to properly use statistics, instances of cognitive biases, the use of proper methodologies and so on.
It is where homeopathy relies on confirmation bias, where the anti-vaccine lobby is energised by anecdotes, and where deniers of climate science selectively highlight agreeable data.
Add cold fusion to the list
Just curious as to where remote viewing would fall in this author’s continuum?
I would add to the pseudoscience list:
1. The “Science” of Global Warming.
2. The HIV = AIDS Mythology
Like Political Science. Like Wymyns’ Studies Science....
There is no “proof” in science; only degrees of “failure to disprove”. That’s an important difference.
Global warming is a sick cult with "The Emperor's New Clothes as its Prayers; George Orwell's "1984" as its history; and Chicken Little as its deity.