What’s the difference between science and pseudoscience?
Pseudoscience can’t move on when evidence comes along to disprove its ideas; science does.
Consider homeopathy, virtually unchanged over the past 200 years. Homeopathy was developed during a time when medicine was anything but evidence based, when common treatments were to bleed the patient or treat them with toxic metal compounds, treatments which are now also be considered sheer quackery.
Given the choice between pseudoscience which makes you sicker and pseudoscience which does nothing, the later seems the better choice, so homeopathy was able to establish itself as a reasonable treatment.
However, much progress has been made in medicine over the past 200 years. We now know that some diseases are caused by micro-organisms, others by genetic diseases, and yet others by environmental poisoning. And based on our better understanding of disease we now have reliable cures and treatments for many diseases.
Modern medicine has responded to changes in scientific knowledge and created new, potent treatments of disease. Homeopathy has not. It has not provided cures for any diseases of significance but instead lurks in the fringes of self limiting conditions.