Though it is easy to laugh off many pseudoscientific claims, there is actually much harm in their ideas. As stated in lecture, pseudo-”archaeologists” often have harmful motivations behind their actions. They can be for money, fame, religious reasons, or the most harmful; nationalism. Historically, many ethnocentric movements have used pseudoscience as “evidence” for their claim to superiority. Examples include the eugenics movement, the holocaust, and neo-nazism. Pseudoscience has the ability to fuel ingrained ideas that many racist groups already hold. Hilter and his following very infamously used pseudoarchaeology to show their German superiority, and further the validity of their claims. They often claimed that ancient artifacts and sites were made/used by Germans, therefore they are technologically more advanced than the rest of the population.
We can look at these extreme cases and easily write off these pseudoscientific claims they are involved with because, well, they are “insane.” What we fail to consider, though, are the smaller, everyday pseudoscientific claims that we do not immediately recognize as being pseudoscience. Television networks like the History Channel are viewed by the general public as factual, yet they are some of the worst perpetrators of pseudoscience. Shows like Ancient Aliens and America Unearthed manipulate viewers into believing these obscure ideas. Not only this, but they also give the public a skewed perception of what science, and more specifically, archaeology, really is. Just because we see someone has a PhD next to their name, we assume that they are a reliable source of information. But, as discussed in lecture, these shows fail to tell the audience that this “PhD” person giving their opinion on an archaeological find, is actually a chemist, or from some other scientific field that is unrelated to the situation at hand.
As said before, many of these pseudoscientists have harmful motivations behind their actions, which in turn can harm the audience that believes their claims. People like Erich von Daniken sell books, magazines, and even charities to their audiences just for fame and money. Daniken, and others like him, have claims so obscure and that lack evidence, but they continue to milk money and popularity out of the public through manipulation and lies. Pseudoscientists also often pit themselves against “mainstream” science, so that the public feels as if the mainstream scientists are keeping secrets from them. This sort of manipulation causes a divide and a skewed understanding of what scientific fact and actual evidence really is.
In your post you mention the “smaller, everyday pseudoscientific claims that we do not immediately recognize as being pseudoscience” and I agree that they are incredibly problematic. It’s one thing to see a big, out there idea and write it off as insane, but the smaller ideas that one might be able to look at and say “I don’t know… maybe?” are so dangerous. This is a problem especially when they are presented by outlets like the History Channel which seem like they would be a valid source of information. For people of the general public, it’s easy to think things like “why shouldn’t I consider what the history channel says? It’s the HISTORY CHANNEL after all.” Except they aren’t getting facts, they’re getting hooks, just sparkly ideas presented on a platter of corporate greed gilded in a guise of credibility.
Not only that, but presenting people with small, not quite outrageous claims first could lead them to believe bigger, more out there things in the future. Couple this with what you mentioned at the end of your post, the pseudoscientists pitting themselves against “mainstream” scientists, and it makes believing the claims even easier for a casual audience.
The idea that pseudoscientists are seeking out the “real truth” instead of actual scientists is an entire issue on it’s own. There are so many toxic, subtle ideas that could go along with this, such as a distrust of schooling in general (which can be seen in some extreme groups who claim education “brainwashes” people into leaning a certain way politically), and thinking that opinion has any value in the face of fact (with things like alternative facts, and people thinking they can just not believe in climate change and that means it isn’t happening).