Pseudo-science is the imitation of science. It is disguising something as science, when it is not, by framing something in the language of science or with an outright claim of being scientific.
This is just what I said, in less flowery language. With one exception.
Pseudo-science strikes me in its tone of strong judgment as inherently "bad science" to better serve to describe a special kind of infant-science. Infant-science which pretends to be an adult and/or refuses to actually grow up.
An exception which touches a pet topic of mine, so forgive me for taking a bite. (also, I am actually not having a habit of biting pets).
I stress that in general mere "observation", as you say (and I meant, among other things)
was in itself already a part of science, even if not the kind of science we, in the end, rely on in natural sciences, even if not the kind of science it all is supposed to lead to and which is supposed to be the solid rock of our understanding (rather than a vague, messy and not unlikely deceiving work in progress like in the case of the topic of this thread).
You stress that this was
not "science".
I can see how that strict - shall we say cleanliness of the term "science" makes sense for a field such as physics. It just is such an easy and rewarding field to do science* the best and the hardest way that it makes sense to not include anything else into this privileged club of "actually science".
However, I come from a background of social science (whereas "background" is laying it on thick badly, but let me have a bit of vanity) and as such, I believe to have got to known what such a strict understanding of science leads to. In summarization - it leads to soft sciences which in their vain effort to be hard and hence "real" sciences forget about becoming more useful / getting closer to the truth for the sake of seeming more respectable. A phenomena which deeply and painfully penetrates all areas, right down to the basic curriculum.
And having concerned myself with that problem, I have grown quit aware of what all kinds of factors actually factor into science and what an in the end otherworldly and removed perspective the kind of "science" represents you only admit the title of "science" to. That works in practice fine for say physics, because the material is - in comparison to soft sciences - so so simple and fantastically testable* - that the fact that the "reality" of science is quit a bit different doesn't matter so much and appears more philosophical than relevant.
But it matters tremendously in soft sciences. And the kind of extremely limited scope of what science is and which you seem to share, is IMO a large factor in that.
And I really hate that. There is that.
Have a nice day, I feel better already.
*For the actual person doing the work / research, hard science are of course not easier than soft sciences. Often, the exact opposite evidently seems to be case. What I said is to be put in relation to acquiring knowledge as such, regardless of the difficulty an individual has to encounter in a particular field of science on his or her way to achieve recognition by the scientific community.
Disclaimer: I don't know how much this matters since uppi isn't a native English speaker either, but in German "science" is traditionally a much broader word, called "Wissenschaft", the craft of obtaining knowledge, and without a doubt that difference of semantics has influenced me. But the issue I explained is no less real for it, and it may be no coincidence that the effect of natural sciences on soft sciences I talked about originated in the English-speaking world. And incidentally, before that movement, English-speaking social sciences weren't very relevant and withered in the shadow of their European counterparts.
