Sometimes when discussing the historical influence of eugenics, scientific racism, etc., "pseudoscience" gets invoked as a kind of game of no true Scotsman so that we can effectively edit them out of the history of science as not being "real" and therefore trivial.
People don’t realize in America that “race” on the census all derives from “pseudoscience.” Bad science is engraved in this country’s DNA.
Yep it’s always been about trivializing exactly what power eugenics held (and still holds)
About Maria Montessori’s eugenicist beliefs, fascist collaboration, broader agenda. ”The fascist regime was interested in Montessori’s model of education, esp. as a tool to instill discipline. The regime’s school reform and social investments impressed Montessori. And she had a dictatorial side."
I would distinguish between past and present here. Wrong ideas in science aren't pseudoscience, they're just wrong. Wrong ideas are always part of science, and giving up on them is how science moves.
Once an idea has been given up on, though — there's enough evidence against the idea that no one bothers hunting for more — then what was science can come back as pseudoscience.
Instead of trying to find facts to support or reject the idea, for pseudoscience the fact that the idea *feels* true to some people is the foundation.
Oh, sure. I'm not saying that pseudoscience is not a useful concept, but rather trying to unpack one of the rhetorical uses of the the concept.
💯 I meant to agree with you and put the distinction in my own words to get it straight in my head.