The conflation of pseudoarcheology with fringe science, especially in recent years, is clearly intended by the accusers to delegitimize fringe scientific theories unfavored by them for whatever reason by fallacy of association.

This has been demonstrated in no uncertain terms by Professor John Hoopes from the University of Kansas in a twitter discussion. Hoopes deemed a comprehensive bibliography, compiled by the author (Young and Howard 2018) of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, a specific scientific hypothesis first published in 2007 (Firestone et al. 2007) to be biased. The basis for his claim was that it did not include previous pseudoscientific or fringe works concerning Atlantis, the biblical flood, and vague narratives of cataclysm at the terminal Pleistocene (Hoopes 2019a).

In other words, Hoopes sees a bibliography of peer-reviewed, evidence-based scientific literature as biased because it does not include non-peer reviewed pseudoscientific literature about topics that are unrelated. In his mind there is no distinction between peer-reviewed, hard scientific data in scientific journals and the works of Donnelly, Velikovsky, and others; if both the scientists and the pseudoscientists are saying vaguely similar things, then it must all be dismissed as pseudoscience.