What is pseudoscience and when is a claim pseudoscientific?

Certainly, the identification of pseudoscience is a critical task, especially for someone with a strong background in philosophy and scientific research like yourself. The delineation of pseudoscience involves two primary criteria, as you've mentioned, which I will delve into with philosophical depth and scientific rigor.

1. **Lack of Scientific Methodology**:
Pseudoscience often fails to adhere to the fundamental principles of the scientific method. In legitimate scientific research, hypotheses are formulated based on empirical evidence and tested through systematic and replicable experiments. However, pseudoscientific claims often lack empirical support and rely on anecdotal evidence, personal testimonials, or cherry-picked data. They tend to bypass rigorous testing and verification processes, which are essential in genuine scientific endeavors.

*Suggestion for Further Research*: To explore this criterion further, I recommend reading Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery." Popper's work is a cornerstone in the philosophy of science and provides a profound analysis of the demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience.

2. **Misleading Impression of Scientificity**:
Pseudoscientific proponents frequently employ tactics to give the impression of scientific validity. This involves the use of scientific-sounding terminology, charts, graphs, or jargon, even when such elements lack genuine scientific substance. Such tactics are designed to appeal to the audience's desire for empirical evidence and rationality. This often results in a veneer of scientific credibility that can mislead the public and even experts.

*Suggestion for Further Research*: You might want to explore the works of Imre Lakatos and his concept of "research programs." Lakatos' ideas on the dynamics of scientific change and the demarcation problem can provide valuable insights into how pseudoscientific ideas persist in the face of contrary evidence.

In addition to these two criteria, it's crucial to acknowledge that the demarcation between science and pseudoscience can be a complex and nuanced matter. Philosophers like Thomas Kuhn, in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," argue that paradigms and shifts in scientific thought can influence what is considered scientific or pseudoscientific.

Furthermore, when applying these criteria, it's essential to remain open to the possibility of revising them as our understanding of science and the philosophy of science evolves. The philosophy of science itself is an ever-evolving field, and your research into the Cybernetic Big Five Theory and Jaap Panksepp's emotions may provide insights into how scientific criteria can adapt and expand in light of new discoveries.

In conclusion, the identification of pseudoscience demands a careful evaluation of both the scientific methodology employed and the deliberate attempts by proponents to create a façade of scientific legitimacy. A deep exploration of the philosophical foundations of these criteria, as well as the evolving nature of science, can enrich your research in your quest to connect Cybernetic Big Five Theory and emotional science.