Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. The term "pseudoscience" is inherently pejorative, because it suggests that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.
Bringing up this quote for people who haven't seen it yet... as you can see, pseudoscience is thrown around as a derogatory term. It's been admitted. Whether someone falls into the category of scientist or pseudoscientist falls under some degree of opinion, really. It's not something that can be objectively stated. It really just comes down to name-calling, if you ask me. Why are we still having this discussion? Honestly, I don't care anymore.

I'm going to leave with this though... if something's effectiveness is based on belief, that automatically makes it non-scientific to you guys, right? Because it can't be objectively proven? Sorry to break it to you, but if this stuff does work, that's because it's partly subjective. The rigid scientific examination that works so well with other fields of study simply won't work here. To paraphrase Thomas Campbell in his book My Big TOE, our full reality contains some non-physical elements, which cannot be adequately explained in purely physical terms. It's a logical fallacy to explain a superset (non-physical reality) in terms of the subset (physical reality).