Poor, Edmund W wrote:

My impression of "pseudoscience", admittedly rather subjective, is that it doesn't ever bother to cite facts. Its hypotheses simply *must* be true. "Junk science", by contrast, does cite facts but does so selectively, deliberately *ignoring* facts which contradict its hypotheses.

I would love it, if someone would expand the Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience and junk science, in a scrupulously neutral way.

For example, the [[global warming]] article has never clarified the relationship (if any) among solar activity, carbon dioxide levels, and observation of temperature at sea level, the lower atmosphere, and the upper atmosphere. Someone who knows what has been observed, and which observations have been deliberately hidden or ignored, could make a great contribution here.

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.

Eclecticology