Consider that data is meaningless unless interpreted, and in order to identify something as pseudoscience, it has to be interpreted. So the logic seems to be circular. Science becomes pseudoscience when it is identified as such, so then one can claim that science is infallible by excluding undesirable data from the set. Also, if science did not require interpretation, and it was immediately obvious what is properly conducted science and what is not, we would not have the peer review process.
And consider the many accepted "scientific facts" that were widely agreed upon by both academia and society at large until new research proved otherwise. That's kind of the whole point of science, to perpetually prove itself wrong. So assuming that current scientific knowledge is 100% accurate is a bias towards the present. It assumes that nothing will be disproved by research in the future.
Also, an example of "good" science that still gets used for ideological purposes is IQ distribution and IQ as a predictor of social success. The evidence is pretty strong, but it is typically used to insinuate that a human's worth is directly derived from their intelligence, which is an ideological assertion.
The institution of science is also not infallible. It was revealed some time ago that 50% of all scientific research is not reproducible.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
There's vested financial interests in scientific research, problems of funding, personal agenda, and yes, scientists can be ideologically influenced.
And even if the science conducted ITSELF is proper, what research gets funded and published, and which does not, also influences public narrative.
In light of all of this, splitting hairs over what is real science, and what is pseudoscience, etc., seems almost irrelevant. The whole idea of science-worship is that people put faith in the INSTITUTION of science, imagining that just because the scientific method is "infallible", the institutions surrounding it, or even scientists themselves, somehow inherit the infallibility.
They believe in science in a manner that one believes in God. They treat science as an authority, rather than a methodology. Along with the belief that science can solve every single problem ever, as long as sufficient effort is exercised.
Scientifically derived facts, by themselves, mean nothing. They have to be interpreted to mean anything, and at that point you are in the realm of philosophy or ideology or "soft" disciplines.
It's the blindness to this interpretation part, that allows bad faith actors to use the "authority" of science in order to push narratives, exactly because they have faith that science does not require interpretation, and so the first or most popular interpretation they see, they assume to be the objective truth.
>Question: If someone is dressed like a cop and tells you that your post has broken a bunch of laws and you should follow him now to jail, does that mean it's actual police work?
"Actual police work" is not a divinely ordained law, police work is whatever the state defines to be police work, and if they define that anyone who is dressed like a cop is a cop, then they will be a cop as per the state's law.
>Or a policeman who is corrupt and breaks the law all the time, is he still a policeman or just a criminal anymore?
He is a policeman until the state decides he is not any more, according to their own criteria. Because the states defines the conditions of being a cop or a criminal, arbitrarily and with full authority.
What were those though experiments supposed to prove, exactly?
>As said before, what we need more of is science
Apparently we have shittons of science, to the point that half of it is not reproducible either due to poor funding, or funding by vested interests, or research that is accurate, but results in no useful knowledge. (Scientific research in the validity of booger consumption for treatment of Alzheimer's that concludes no observable effect, is still "correct" science). What's the point of more research, if the results of said research does not yield anything useful?
Also, who decides what scientific knowledge is useful, and which scientific endeavors to fund in order to create maximum benefit to society? Who decides what is beneficial? We do. And not through the scientific method, but by means of philosophy or ethics or whatever.
Research that proves the efficacy of X for treatment of epilepsy, and research that finds no evidence of rhino powder consumption on male sexual performance, are both equivalently scientifically correct. How do we decide which is more valuable knowledge to us?
Also, not everyone who disseminates incorrect information is lying, some people are just honestly mistaken or wrong, and science does not prevent someone from being wrong, it merely gives you likelihoods based on available data.