In any case, there are many fields—I shall call them proto-sciences—in which practice does generate testable conclusions but which nevertheless resemble philosophy and the arts rather than the established sciences in their developmental patterns. I think, for example, of fields like chemistry and electricity before the mid-eighteenth century, of the study of heredity and phylogeny before the mid-nineteenth, or of many of the social sciences today. In these fields, too, though they satisfy Sir Karl's [ Popper's] demarcation criterion, incessant criticism and continual striving for a fresh start are primary forces, and need to be. No more than in philosophy and the arts, however, do they result in clear-cut progress. I conclude, in short, that the proto-sciences, like the arts and philosophy, lack some element which, in the mature sciences, permits the more obvious forms of progress. It is not, however, anything that a methodological prescription can provide. Unlike my present critics, Lakatos at this point included, I claim no therapy to assist the transformation of a proto-science to a science, nor do I suppose anything of this sort is to be had.
— Thomas Kuhn, Criticism and the growth of knowledge, 1970
EU would appear to be a protscience. This is why the term psuedoscience should not be taken in the wrong way. That scientific use of the term does not denote the protoscience as bad or unwanted, it simply means that there has not been a scientific formalisation of the field. "Psuedo" denoting "not a full science", or "not fully formalised" ... NOT "false". So those that use that term offensively should be ignored - they don't know what they are talking about. They don't know their history of science and how things become formalised. Moreso those who balk at the term psuedoscience need to read the above quote or look at the term protoscience and maybe go and have a cold shower. I've got as equally hysterical myself sometimes ... it's difficult to keep your head when all those around you are losing theirs. But in the end I remind myself that science is a very difficult endeavour - if very rewarding. It also involves so many different factors, many of them sociological and psychological - this is what I think Kuhn is pointing out in the quote above - that the emergence of a protoscience can defy rational analysis and scrutiny.