Eclecticology wrote:

As a first impression for distinguishing between the debates about pseudoscience from those about junk science is as follow:

"Pseudoscience" tends to relate to theoretical concepts that are on the fringes of science, and usually involve supporters of "mainstream" science versus supporters of alternative theoretical concepts.

"Junk science" depends on divergent interpretations or applications of principles which in themselves are already accepted by mainstream science.

"Pseudoscience" tends to focus on theory. "Junk science" tends to focus on application".

All parties to both debates tend to cite facts, or at least perceived facts.

There is nothing wrong with saying that a hypothesis must be true as long as it remains nothing more than a hypothesis. i.e. a statement that is subject to be tested, and a basis for experimental design.

Thanks. If that info is not in the [[pseudoscience]] and [[junk science]] articles, it should be.

Uncle Ed