Science has a certain common core, especially a reliance on empirical methods of assessing hypotheses. Pseudosciences have little in common but their negation: they are not science. They reject meaningful empirical assessment in some way or another. Popper proposed a clear demarcation criterion for Science v Rubbish: Falsifiability. However, his criterion has not stood the test of time. There are no definitive arguments
against any pseudoscience, any more than against extreme skepticism in general, but there are clear indicators of phoniness.
Slides can be found here:
My research is in: machine learning, artificial intelligence, philosophy of science, scientific method, Bayesian inference and reasoning, Bayesian networks, artificial life, computer simulation, epistemology, evaluation theory.
See http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~korb/ The page is out of date, but accurate as far as it goes.