What are the two traits of pseudoscience?

Answer 1

dihybrid and heterozygous

Answer 2

I'll give you the laundry list then you can decide which two you want to use. Telltale signs of pseudoscience include:

- Extraordinary or outlandish claims.

- Use of vague or ambiguous language.

- Use of unfalsifiable arguments.

- Lack of independent replication or verifiable evidence.

- Lack of peer reviewed publications or appearance only in questionable low impact pay-to-publish journals.

- Routine appeals to conspiracy.

- Routine use of rhetoric.

- Routine use of logical fallacies, such as equivocation.

- Overt religious or political bias.

The problem with citing just two traits of pseudoscience is that depending on which two (or even three) that we chose we may find examples of legitimate science that qualify for our definition. For example, String Theory is an extraordinary claim, is largely unfalsifiable, and lacks empirical evidence... that's three traits. By that definition String Theory should be pure and utter nonsense, but it isn't. String Theory is considered legitimate science in the realm of theoretical physics where we don't expect evidence to exist and methods of testing may be hypothetical at best. So context is a very important factor to consider when deciding whether something is pseudoscience or not.

Pseudoscience is probably best defined, not by a list of traits, but by what it fails to achieve. Pseudoscience can never achieve widespread acceptance within the community of experts studying a particular subject because it is invariably scrutinized and rejected for producing no new knowledge, failing to understand, build upon, or modify existing theory, and opening no doors for further study. If pseudoscience were merely failed science then it would be rejected on its merits alone.

Answer 3

I don’t know