Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience

I am editing this and reuploading to fix some errors. Dr Sundance Bilson-Thompson discusses principles of distinguishing science from pseudoscience - referred to as the 'baloney detection kit'.
Main points:
1. Reproducibility
2. Falsifiability
3. Repeatability
4. Source Quality
5. Parsimony
6. Mechanistic

He then discusses the relationship between this and the problem of demarcation.

Is scientific progress made through 'paradigm shifts' OR the accumulation of empirically obtained knowledge?

Explanatory Value: What makes an explanation useful?

It's the test that determines what is true or false!

Sundance Bilson-Thompson's Research focus:
Topological invariants and particle states in the context of quantum gravity. Our current best attempts to describe the most fundamental physical phenomena are String Theory, which postulates that all particles are tiny vibrating bands of energy which exist in higher dimensions, and Loop Quantum Gravity, which postulates that space and time form a kind of finely-structured mesh rather than a smooth arena through which matter and energy propagate. Dr Bilson-Thompson will be working on the idea that in theories like Loop Quantum Gravity, this "mesh" structure of spacetime can naturally include tangles and that these can be classified in such a way that they correspond exactly to the particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks,...) that matter is made of.
This is an exciting project because it suggests that matter may be topological structures built into spacetime itself, rather than a separate type of entity.

Many thanks for watching!

[tiagotiagot]

What's the difference between reproducibility and repeatability?