StructuredDream

As far as I can tell, the definitions of safety used by the scientific community are not the same as those used by the general public. The average person tends to be more interested in drug-style testing which actually  demonstrates safe and effective products. Similar to what we expect for water safety or cars with crash testing. Most people seem to believe water, drugs, and cars have to be positively tested for their impacts, especially unintended ones.   Less educated people tend not to be interested in, and to the degree they're aware of it at all: perhaps even suspicious of "nutritional equivalence" as a definition of safety. On this, they seem to have a point in that the criteria seems too loose, and allow things we would want to keep out. A grain of sand and a grain of plutonium may both have no nutritional value, but one is about as innocuous as it can be, the other maximally toxic. Healthy water may be equivalent in ph and hydration to that with lead c

One of these practitioners is engaged in what can be generally considered science, while the other cannot... Insofar as any research framework is held to be infallible or unalterable, it will tend to be more pseudoscientific. In situations when we hold our claims to be science, yet that no possible evidence can refute its assumptions, update its definition, or reduce our level of certainty, we have crossed into pseudoscience.