Pseudoscience isn’t necessarily hard to determine (Personally, I prefer the term ‘bad science’, though ‘bad science’ is a broader term). Homeopathy, astrology and Peter Duesberg’s notion that drug use causes AIDS are all readily assessed as pseudoscience. Ditto for the vociferous anti-vaccination groups that claimed mercury in vaccines produced autism.
Let’s take the ‘mercury in vaccines accounts for the significant rise in autistic children’ idea. Initially, it might have been a decent initial hypothesis to investigate. But as the data came in showing no significant correlation with vaccinations it became clear that the hypothesis didn’t hold up. Today, there’s still the mercury and ‘toxins’ in vaccines angle being worked by proponents but it’s clear they’re operating solidly in the pseudoscience domain now.
And working with pseudoscience isn’t necessary a jobs killer. There’s a division of the NIH set up for Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Health. That includes a lot of woo that passes for medical treatment. One can skirt the edges pretty easily and get away with it. Even homeopathy continues to hold a strong foothold as a treatment modality in Europe.
Overall, for people familiar with a particular research area in question, it’s often not hard to distinguish ‘sound science’ from something that merely 'sounds scientific".
I can call myself (and what I do) anything I like, because I’m not seeking grants, employment, publication in specialist journals or a PhD. If I were, those interacting with me would have opinions on the boundaries.
I think one can readily develop opinions on the boundaries you hold while in professional retirement. That’s because you don’t stint in expression. 