I agree. It becomes pseudoscience when it contradicts existing scientific knowledge without any rationale or explicitly comes from a a rejection of the scientific method. There's a difference between being pseudoscientific and being wrong. A lot of hypothesis about how the world works today, including some seemingly strong beliefs backed by pots of evidence, will be found to be wrong or incomplete as we move forward and develop better tools and science.

My understanding is that the term 'pseudo-science' refers to theories that people pretend have scientific backing but really don't, as opposed to theories that just eventually prove to be false. So I might claim that homeopathy is based on the principle of 'like-heals-like' and claim that it is based in science, but in reality there is no scientific evidence to back that idea and so homeopathy would then be pseudo-science.