Terms for people who confuse legitimate science with things that appear to be scientific but actually have very little legitimacy in the scientific community — pseudoscience, woo-woo, technobabble, science crank, and crackpot.
Pseudolaw — Ideas that appear to outsiders as having the trappings of legitimacy, but are wholly rejected by the legal community.
Pseudohistory — Ideas that, in reality, differ radically from typical accepted historical practice.
I don't mean to suggest that non-academics are unable to create new knowledge, that would be an ahistorical and privileged viewpoint. Rather, I think there are two groups of people:
People outside academia who try to appear to use academic-like jargon, but make near-zero effort to engage with the substance of that field of study.
People outside academia who actually try to engage (at least somewhat) with the substance of that field of study.