AGW also has truckloads of junk science and could also mostly be
considered pseudoscience.
Such techniques are
considered pseudoscience and there is no evidence that they reduce the symptoms associated with reactive attachment disorder.
Not exact matches
Plus you only
consider I.D.
pseudoscience as valid.
«Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy, and the scientific community
considers it to be
pseudoscience.»
Can such an idea be tested when it is being treated as a
pseudoscience and thus above testing, when it is
considered herisy to even subject it to test?