Because "pseudoscience" is a pejorative. There is an uncanny valley between non-science and science. Realistically, everything we know about a lot of things ex

Because "pseudoscience" is a pejorative. There is an uncanny valley between non-science and science. Realistically, everything we know about a lot of things exists in that uncanny valley. Most or all of psychology & economics. A lot of of zoology, ecology, health sciences etc. Yet, it's an uncomfortable place. Different professions have dealt with it differently over time, usually trying to reach one bank or the other. The bad name pseudoscience has isn't unearnearned. Our modern conception of "scientific" (empirical falsification, etc.) was kinda invented to debunk turn of the century psychology and economics... and those often did earn pseudoscience's reputation. The philosophical implications of "hard" sciences really are different, and the disadvantages of semi-scientific pursuits do really manifest. Say we study mental health impacts of exercise on teenagers. You may find a result in one school. It might be replicable in a nearby school. It probably won't hold true in a different country or a decade. That's because we aren't really isolating fundamentals, as scientists should. OTOH, we can't isolate fundamentals in a lab and still have results that are relevant to actual mental health IRL. Does that mean the whole pursuit is pseudoscience? Computer science is in the same position. You can strive for an F=ma, ideal understanding of fundamentals... but... there's not always a lot of gas in that car.