I like a OP question that tackles a problem head on.
Science is a discrete, structured form of human knowledge scaffolded over time by means of the scientific method of whatever remains when observations or hypothesis are reproducibly tested to the extent it is possible confirm hypotheses and observations that are FALSIFIABLE.
Falsifiability is important to the scaffolding of science because unless an observation or hypothesis is verified by more than one scientist (and by that I mean, scientists that do not have a vested interest in the observation or the scientific interpretation of the result of the other), then the veracity of the observation or hypothesis remains tentative until the necessary work is performed to attempt to falsify it. Until this is done, what you have is an observation or a hypothesis that has not passed all of the testing necessary for incorporation into our growing body of scientific knowledge.
Because the structure of scientific knowledge is discrete, a knowledge of science in one field or area of expertise does not necessarily mean someone has even a rudimentary knowledge of other parts of science. No person or scientist alive, save possibly the all-knowing Google together with Wikipedia, has a ready command of every facet of every field of science. This feature of science causes a lot of heated science discussions here and elsewhere, and I suspect this would be so even if there were not a parallel development of a correspondingly vast amount of disinformation about science as readily accessible to internet users as more reputable sources. This situation is likely to remain the case indefinitely, or for as long as the disinformation yields as much or more profit than reliable sources that require payment in order to access the more reliable information.
Karl Popper, a noted philosopher, is responsible both for a theory that the structuring of science knowledge by means of the scientific method is in some ways analogous to the process of evolution by means of natural selection, and for the requirement that such hypotheses be falsifiable. If what Popper says about science is true, and it probably is, it would suggest that pseudoscience competes in a more or less direct manner with science in a struggle for survival of the fittest. I would hasten to point out that it is much easier to scaffold real science by incorporating it into our structure of scientific knowledge than it is to try and fit pseudoscience into the same framework. The problem with this idea is that even time tested scientific ideas are more or less continously replaced by new theories that explain more and provide direction for new scaffolding. Rather like this:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170328-why-you-should-mostly-trust-what-science-tells-you
Suggest use of the Google Chrome browser to view this video
Note what parts are ommitted in Popper's description of science. Peer review would seem to be an important way to vet new scientific knowledge, but there are several problems with this approach, particularly in the internet age. What if there are as many peer reviewers invested in disinformation and pseudoscience as there are in real science? Many of these pseudoscientists may have convincing credentials, or credentials that are at least as convincing as many actual scientists. The other problem seems to be that real scientists engaged for pay in scientific work are likely to be very busy people. Most who are not academics or who do not have an army of graduate students working for them for academic credit have the time to devote to carefully reading or vetting the work of other scientists, even within their own increasingly narrow scientific specialties.
