No, experimenting is not pseudoscience, but taking a single flawed experiment communicated anecdotally with no mention of setup or control and then moving into discussion about the "results" as if it was performed in any way reproducibly is pseudoscience. It presents itself as science but when you pick it apart it's actually lacking many mainstays of what we'd call scientific methodology.

It's not necessarily false, it's just less rigorous.

So we can call it light science. Or amateur science?

People shouldn't be discouraged from practicing science.

Or we could call it pseudoscience? I'm not discouraging anyone, in fact I'm encouraging repeating the experiment with more rigour, that is calling you more science.

dude just experimented a bit.

science is when what you call rigour leads from hypothesis closer to fact or not fact.

op just tried a quick and dirty experiment with duck tape and stuff.

get your attitude right, mate.

name three examples that describe the term pseudo-science, to begin with. Psychology doesn't count ^^