A foundational model for distinguishing pseudoscience from science along two fundamental dimensions. The first axis runs from Methodologically Sound (uses scientific methods: hypothesis testing, peer review, self-correction) to Methodologically Unsound (relies on anecdote, authority, or unfalsifiable claims). The second axis runs from Progressive Research Program (generates new questions, evolves with evidence) to Stagnant Dogma (repeats same claims regardless of evidence, immune to falsification). These two axes create four categories: sound-progressive (mainstream science), sound-stagnant (some legit but moribund fields), unsound-progressive (rare—maybe early stages of fringe ideas that later become science), unsound-stagnant (classic pseudoscience: astrology, homeopathy). The model reveals that pseudoscience isn't simply "wrong science"—it's science that fails on methodology and refuses to progress.
The 2 Axes of the Pseudoscience Spectrum "You keep calling anything you disagree with pseudoscience. The 2 Axes show otherwise: homeopathy is unsound and stagnant—that's pseudoscience. A controversial but testable hypothesis is unsound but progressive—that's fringe science, not pseudoscience. Different axes, different judgments. Learn the difference."
by Dumu The Void February 25, 2026
Get the The 2 Axes of the Pseudoscience Spectrum mug.