> what I currently view as pseudoscience Are these claims trying to be scientific in the first place? If not, don't evaluate them as such. Science (as in scie

> what I currently view as pseudoscience Are these claims trying to be scientific in the first place? If not, don't evaluate them as such. Science (as in scientific method) and truth are orthogonal. I'd start with the problem of induction. Those who are allergic to any non-scientific claims usually consider it to be an uninteresting technicality. Those of us who aren't are more likely to consider it a fundamental limitation. Let your friend make the case. It's okay if you don't think these beliefs can be proven. If you cannot disprove them or prove that it must be somehow stupid/wrong to entertain an unproven claim, you shouldn't imply otherwise. I'm not sure what your friend's exact beliefs are. AFAIK new age stuff may like the scientific angle, but even if scientific character is implied, yet the claims aren't scientific in their nature, I'd still say it's more charitable to avoid the charge of pseudoscience.