Thank you for your response. I am going to shamefully use Wikipedia for the basic definition: > Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. From Encyclopedia Britannica: > Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis. Regarding evil: there is nothing wrong with the concept per se. But one must first (if they are scientific, and you asked for "evidence") define what evil is. Often when people hit cognitive dissonance, they stop the cognitive burn and rush to compartmentalize their senses and conclude the other party is either "evil" or "crazy." (this is discussed a little in "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt) What I attempted to argue, in short, is that such a concept (that there is an external entity or force) is not necessary when you scientifically consider the human nature of interactions between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. Now, I want to make sure I'm not making you think I'm advocating for moral relativism, just that the simpler idea covers the result and correlates quite nicely. The real sin for us humans is the complacency in dealing with our feelings of understanding this difference in morality. I've seen this idea of good/evil lock people into paradigms of irreconcilability. So, I just try to look for something as simple as it can be and add the complications in layers as the theory is challenged. I don't go to a far off paradigm rather let the ideas grow naturally. That said, I don't really know what good and evil is, which is all I know for certain.