Interesting that there is a distinction between (in film) pseudoscience and (in film) psychology, or nuclear and (generic) physics - 99% of anything that is use

Interesting that there is a distinction between (in film) pseudoscience and (in film) psychology, or nuclear and (generic) physics - 99% of anything that is used by a "mad scientist" character is safely grounded in the pseudoscience side of things, as in "all of this is made-up" against the "20% of the claims of this paper may hold up to the next 50 years of research" of actual science. The only difference is that we as a public, don't know most of the actual sciences and cannot distinguish between, e.g., biotech psychobabble and actual biotech. But it's interesting -- would parapsychology (or alchimy, or other not-science-anymore) be counted towards psychology/chemistry if we were to adopt a nomenclature that allows made-up stuff to be (nominally) part of an established discipline because it uses the scientific terms and - loosely - suspected way of thinking of that discipline?