In its centuries-long history, scientific research had to rely on a constantly increasing dose of specific equipment, tools, language and formalism in order to progress. This baggage helped create a very distinctive image of "Science" in people's collective imaginary. Unfortunately, this image always precedes the science's real essence (the scientific method), with the result that anything tends to be perceived as "science" on the basis of whether they conform to this preconceived "sciencey" aesthetic or not rather then their adherence to the actual scientific method.
Like all forms of pseudoscience, State Pseudoscience is well aware of this psychological association and relies on it in order to promote its doctrines as "Science", but also to dismiss as "unscientific" anything that might threaten its status-quo; if something is coming out of a modern laboratory, and expressed in "sciencey"-sounding words by a guy wearing a lab-coat or a tie, then it is "Science" (regartless of whether it contains gross methodological flaws); on the contrary, anything that either comes out of some guy's basement, feature concepts with some vague similarity to some ancient/popular/religious belief or superstition, uses terms or imagery that recall magic or mysticism, then it is "unscientific" (regardless of the rigor of the theory or amount of evidence in its favor).
Discriminating between what's relevant to the correct scientific method and what's just an esterior feature however, is not always so simple and straightforward: some particular features that are commonly thought to be absolutely crucial to the scientific method might be in fact only required in a very specific way, or by the specific contexts, and trying to pass them off as inherent requirements is a clear pseudoscientific stance; pseudo-skeptics, fact-deniers and similar kind of pseudoscientists latch onto these subtleties in order to give an appearance of "rigor" to their anti-scientific activity. Examples:
Language: a scientist will judge a theory/study on the basis of how unambiguosly the terms are defined, and how consistently they're used (i.e.: on its rigor), whereas a pseudoscientist will judge a theory on the basis of whether it uses a specific approved terminology or not (i.e.: on its vocabulary).
Mathematics: a scientist will judge a theory/study on the basis of how relevant the maths used is to the context at hand, and how correct it is, whereas a pseudoscientist will judge a theory on the basis of "how much" mathematic is used, or "how advanced" it is.
Scientific tools: a scientist will judge a theory/study on the basis of whether the instrumentation is suited to the intended task and used correctly, whereas a pseudoscientist will judge a study on the basis of "how much" or "how modern/up to date" it is.