It is not correct to say that a scientific theory cannot be challenged unless the challenger provides a superior theory – it’s enough to show that a part or an assumption in the theory is wrong.
Pseudo-science is alive and well, of course, but the label is being used to discredit true (but politically incorrect) scientific criticism. The ideological motivations are usually easy to spot. Some examples:
Cold Fusion. First ridiculed as pseudo-science by the hot fusion people. Now called LENR. The criticisms were mostly about the money.
CAGW. Anthropogenic global warming has been thoroughly debunked, but people that point that out are called ‘deniers’ and worse. AGW is an ideological movement that condemns two great enemies of the modern left – capitalism for its drive to improve the world, and (Western) Man himself as a despoiler of the environment.
Darwinism. Darwinism has three legs – natural selection, heritability, and random mutation. But random mutation has been shown to be a dead end in terms of driving evolution, and everyone in the business knows it (and ignores it). Darwinism isn’t even science anymore. See The Death of Darwinism Part I. Darwinism is clung to because it is suppose to deal a fatal blow to religion, a project of the left since at least the French Revolution.
I feel that it needs to be known: whether there is a fly in the ointment, or if the ointment is the cause of the fly...
so please, riddle me this, because idk