> a “commonsensical definition” would be “something that is not very scientifically supported, that masquerades as if it is already very scientifically establis

> a “commonsensical definition” would be “something that is not very scientifically supported, that masquerades as if it is already very scientifically established”. Does this actually sound like a definition of pseudoscience to anyone? If you think about homeopathy and ancient aliens or whatever, does this address the core of why we think those are "pseudoscience" as opposed to just wrong, even confidently wrong? I don't think it does. IIT is probably wrong, and its proponents should probably shut up or at least show more humility, but "pseudoscience" is the wrong label.