The harms in vehemently believing or defending pseudoscientific claims stem from the nature of the origins of those claims. As discussed, the people who produce pseudoscientific “theories” have motivations (money, power, glory, etc) that operate well outside of the established knowledge-gathering framework that is science (hence, pseudo-). The true believers of these hoaxes aren’t necessarily morally despicable people; they’ve fallen prey to the rhetoric employed by pseudoscientists that makes their claims appear to be rational or obvious. Not everyone can be a trained scientist (and not everyone should be), so in a certain sense the crux of the issue is the people who first make these claims or those who generate content to bolster other pseudoscientific ideas. However, the problem with the people who believe non-scientific claims about the world is that it demonstrates a lack of flexibility and self-reflection in their individual ways of knowing. It shows that once a believer consumes enough of one very narrow viewpoint, they will adhere to it without ever taking a step back to consider why they do. These rigid thought patterns suggest an inability (or unwillingness) to re-conceptualize multifaceted ideas or reconsider their position. Also, the quasi-religious fervor with which some adherents to pseudoscience defend their beliefs is a dangerous rhetorical tool that intends to leave no room for rational dialogues or differing viewpoints.

Regarding archaeology and the human past, non-scientific claims can be especially dangerous because of their common roots in white supremacist/nationalistic ideas (or other ideas that directly discriminate against living peoples). While believing that aliens built the Pyramids or helped the Maya with their math homework might seem like a potentially harmless fantasy, the underlying messaging that non-white non-Europeans must have needed extraterrestrial help to accomplish their great achievements contributes to insidious ideas that have body counts. Pseudoarchaeologists understand that real archaeology is a destructive process, so once they have the ability to take an artifact out of its context (and it therefore loses so much of its original data) it’s almost easy to suggest that it looks like an airplane and get away with it. The layperson’s idea of archaeology as an Indiana Jones-esque hunt for golden idols also gives a foothold to the ideas of non-scientists because of their insistence on ignoring the context of artifacts. Due to the History Channel and a public fascination (and tendency to romanticize) the past, these “folk archaeologists” have a platform that appeals to many people, perhaps more than the slow, logic-based, methodical processes of true archaeology.