This is the issue that lies at the center of the Philosophy of Science, and it is also of keen interest to anyone who seeks to be recognized as a "reputable scientist" and should be considered by the general public as they seek to become informed members of society.

I thought I'd open up a thread where members can share and discuss what they believe are the differences between science and pseudoscience. Bear in mind that this is a difficult question, and there is, as far as I am aware, no fully satisfactory way to answer the question.

I'd ask that we try to stay away from definitions which use the word "science" or any form of it; to say "science is done through a scientific process" does not really say anything.

I'd also like to avoid debates that delve into any particular subject and lose the spirit of the thread. For example, philosophers will often choose a given science and pseudoscience and attempt to draw a line between the two in order to define what is science and what is not. Astrology is often a choice pseudoscience because it can appear to be quite scientific but is not considered to be a science. But let's not go about referencing who says what about astrology being science vs pseudoscience unless we are going to discuss, specifically, what is or is not scientific about it and why these factors are or are not scientific. (I chose astrology because it is a classic example and I do not think it's selection will be debated, but I am fully prepared to discuss why I believe astrology is not a science, should any member ask me to). I realize that that may not be clear, so I will attempt to keep an eye on the thread as (if?) it develops to try to maintain the discussion that I'm interested in seeing. As I recall, doing so is part of my duty when I choose to open a discussion in the Conversation section.