Actually, one of the often used criteria for pseudoscience is "refusal to revise in light of valid criticism". I would refer people to Radner and Radner: Science and Pseudoscience.
As for cold fusion, there are cranks and there are people seriously trying to see if an effect exists. It has its share of scientists and pseudoscientists. Personally, I would not put up money to invest in it - the serious investigators have not found an effect that rises out of the noise. Creationism, on the other hand, meets so many criteria one can confidently call it pseudoscience.
Bob at PC
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [email@example.com] On Behalf Of John Clement [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 6:17 PM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
In some ways the snarky definition is correct! Try to reason with someone
who believes in young Earth Creationism! Using the term pseudoscience is
not helpful there because nothing will convince them. So while I would tend
to use pseudoscience according to the more limited definition, the actual
definition as used by the majority may be quite different. Is cold fusion