Karl A. Krueger wrote:
2. The quesiton
is about how we decide who falls under it or not. In
practice this is difficult, because many forms of things which are
considered "legitimate" science do not meet all of the
"requirements",
and many things which are not considered legitimate science do meet
some of them.
I'm not sure I see a wide variety of "requirements" here. I'm
not
suggesting any complicated philosophy-of-science laundry list of what
makes Good Science, or Normal Science, or whatever. I'm just saying
that we're safe calling it "pseudoscience" when someone parades around
under the banner of "SCIENCE" but isn't actually doing anything
resembling it.
But if you ignore the principles of the philosophy of science, then what
you do is no longer science. There's nothing safe at all in calling it
"pseudoscience". When "someone" is parading around there is no reason
to generalize that to everyone who happens to support the practice in
question. Accepted science has innumerable supporters who aren't doing
anything resembling it.
Ec