Pseudoscience refers to a belief or practice that is presented as a scientific field of study but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method or which lacks supporting evidence or plausibility.
In looser terms, a pseudoscience is one that lacks status among the scientific community.
Commonly held beliefs in popular science may be termed pseudosciences when they do not meet the criteria of science or when they include aspects of science fiction.
Pseudosciences may exist within any scientific field, including the physical sciences, life sciences, applied sciences, social sciences, or in the paranormal or ufology fields.
For the purposes of categorization, junk science and fringe science are included in this category. Junk science is any scientific data, research, or analysis considered to be fraudulent or spurious, while fringe science refers to scientific inquiries that depart significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories.
In most cases, the line between science and pseudoscience is clear and obvious to most people, or at least to those who are paying attention. The demarcation line has itself been a matter of controversy.
Karl Popper was the most influential modern philosopher to attempt to set a clear demarcation line distinguishing science from pseudoscience. Today, his criteria are dismissed by most practitioners. The demarcation line is further blurred when what should be a scientific issue becomes a political one with governmental mandates that suppress the free exchange of ideas. When political ideas masquerade as science, the result is a distrust of science and an open door to pseudoscientific alternatives.
The term pseudoscience was first coined by the historian James Pettit Andrew in 1796 when he referred to alchemy as a "fantastical pseudo-science." Yet, alchemy was practiced for more than four thousand years and is described as the start of the system of modern science in many parts of the world.
Even before we had a word for pseudoscience, several scientific theories were long dismissed as nonsense, only to be later accepted as valid. It was a few decades after the discovery that neutrinos have mass before the majority of scientists believed in it. One of the things that purveyors of pseudosciences hang their hat on is that their particular theory will one day be accepted as valid.
Pseudoscience is differentiated from science because, although it is often presented as a science, pseudoscience does not adhere to scientific standards, such as the scientific method and the falsifiability of claims. However, a theory should not be dismissed as pseudoscience simply because most credentialed scientists have not accepted it. Many valid scientific theories are first dismissed before they are accepted, and when political agendas and government pressure are involved, the dismissals are not necessarily scientific.
Junk science is a step down from pseudoscience. Although pseudoscience is sometimes dismissed as "junk science," the latter refers to spurious or fraudulent scientific data, research, or analysis. The concept was popularized in the 1990s in relation to expert testimony given in civil litigation.
Junk science refers to bad science. It occurs when scientists make dramatic claims based on preliminary or fraudulent data. Junk science often lacks rigorous methodology and is likely to involve biased data because the researchers often have a vested interest. Pseudoscience is often proposed by well-meaning researchers who believe their claims, although they lack empirical evidence and may ignore the scientific method.
Fringe science refers to ideas whose attributes include being highly speculative or relying on premises that have already been refuted. The term is wider than pseudoscience or junk science, as it can cover everything from novel hypotheses, which can be tested utilizing the scientific method, to wild ad hoc hypotheses and nonsense.
Concepts that were once accepted by the mainstream scientific community may become fringe science due to a later evaluation of previous research. As an example, focal infection theory, which held that focal infections of the tonsils or teeth are a primary cause of systemic disease, was once considered to be a medical fact but has since been dismissed due to a lack of evidence.
As the boundaries between science and pseudoscience are often disputed, the concept of fringe science is that the enterprise is rational but is unlikely to produce good results for various reasons, including incomplete or contradictory evidence. Pseudoscience, on the other hand, is something that is not scientific but is incorrectly characterized as science. While most fringe science is rejected, the scientific community has come to accept portions of it. For example, plate tectonics had its origins in the fringe science of continental drift, and was rejected for decades.
 
 
Recommended Resources
Utilizing a wiki platform, the site offers information about pseudoscience, including ways in which it flourishes, and offers paradigmatic examples of pseudoscience in astrology, alternative medicine, IQ studies, psychotherapy, intelligent design, and cargo cult science. It compares pseudoscience and the philosophy of science by defining science by the falsifiability of theories and by the behavior of scientists. Notes are appended to the end of the article.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
The site offers a definition of pseudoscience and a distinction between pseudoscience and science. Pseudoscience is a matter of approach and method, not of subject matter. Areas of parapsychology may be investigated scientifically or pseudoscientifically, just as subject matter that is considered scientific may be investigated scientifically or pseudoscientifically. Several examples of subjects generally considered pseudoscientific are listed, along with famous pseudoscientists.
https://everything2.com/title/pseudoscience
The Explorable website has been online since 2017. It attempts to summarize vital parts of research and make the scientific method more accessible to laypeople. Martyn Shuttleworth wrote an article on Pseudoscience in 2008. The article defines pseudoscience as a belief that masquerades as a real science while failing to follow the scientific method. Several examples of pseudoscience are given, including sections on fringe science and junk science. Signs suggesting pseudoscience are given.
https://explorable.com/pseudoscience/
Fringe Science is intended to provide its readers with access to intriguing and controversial science that pushes the boundaries of the scientific edge. The website examines such topics as whether humans will ever become immortal, whether time travel is possible, whether animals are religious, whether the human species is still evolving, and whether we all live forever in a cyclical universe. Topics are arranged chronologically but categorized by topic, and archives are available.
https://fringescience.ca/
Is Global Warming a Pseudo Science?
Duncan Davidson wrote and published the article on Wall Street Pit, a website that provides breaking news and analysis related to the stock market, economy, politics, technology, science, health, and world news. The article was published in 2010. In it, the author argues that the belief and subsequent policies enacted to combat global warming are the result of pseudoscience rather than valid scientific positions, making his point through several examples.
https://wallstreetpit.com/18200-is-global-warming-a-pseudo-science/
Founded by Steve Milloy, Junk Science challenges the scientific validity of beliefs that may be motivated more by politics than by science, including certain environmental beliefs and health scares. The site posts news items and several articles. Examples of special interests and hidden agendas that may result in faulty science include the media using junk science to produce sensational headlines, government regulators using it to expand their authority, and politicians using it to curry favor.
https://junkscience.com/
This site serves as the archive for material formerly published on the Junk Science site, other than daily news and views updates. Only the domain name has changed; no files have been moved or deleted. The Junk Science site challenges the scientific validity of positions taken by the scientific community that may have been too heavily influenced by politics, social activism, or other agendas. Readers can also see how the Junk Science website has evolved through the archive.
http://junksciencearchive.com/
Similar to the US-based site by this name, the site's purpose is to expose scientific rubbish, particularly when it is used to form public opinion, maintain a status quo, or shape claims with hidden agendas, particularly when good research evidence is denied or ignored. The site also points out false claims or statements made by scientists or others based on junk science. Articles on a variety of topics are categorized by subject. An introduction to the editor is included.
https://junkscience.co.uk/
Owned by the RationalMedia Foundation, RationalWiki is a wiki-based community web project designed to explore and provide information about science, skepticism, and critical thinking. This section of the website features a list of endeavors and concepts regarded as pseudoscientific by the scientific community or by mainstream skeptical organizations, including those deemed to be partially pseudoscientific. Its purpose is to analyze and refute pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_pseudosciences
Published on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website in 2008 and revised in 2021, the article discusses the demarcation between science and pseudoscience in determining which beliefs are warranted and concludes that more philosophical work needs to be done on this issue. The entry clarifies the particular nature of pseudoscience in relation to other categories of non-scientific doctrines and practices, such as science denial. Other Internet resources are cited, as well.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/