"Ghosts are simply the dark-matter manifestations of a quantum string theory enzyme" is an example of pseudo science. Pseudo science is the wittering of sciency sounding nonsense that purports to be an explanation for something. Any vague chat about "energy" "flowing" like the above is pseudo science.
I think that you're just quibbling over lexiconic ownership rights. You seem to think that the domain of science owns all of the words that modern man needs in order to describe the direct felt experience of what science has not yet been able to measure.
Words like energy and flow are often used as metaphors so their use does not automatically imply that one is trying to pass anything off as hard science.
Even the word quantum can be used as a pointer to the idea of non-duality or non-locality without implying a direct connection to hard science. It all just depends on how it's used and what the person was actually trying to get across.
I think that the label 'pseudo science' should be reserved for when a person is definitely trying to invoke hard science when it is uncalled for. It should not be applied haphazardly whenever a person uses a particular set of keywords. After all we are thinking human beings capable of extracting many layers of meaning from sentences beyond a mere analysis of keywords aren't we ?
Then again I suppose there are quite a large number of bots posting on the Internet these days. sigh
what are the limits of science?
i'd also recommend the book "the divided mind" by john sarno to readers of this thread.