I look at it this way, the layman understands science in a fundamental way, that is often obsolete or even based on misunderstanding of fundamental principles of science. For example, in early science education, the atom is often expressed as analogous to planets orbiting the sun, with the sun the nucleus and the planets the electrons. This is pseudo-science, taught in science, as science.
Pseudo-science, is often taught in early science, because you need to build a foundation for the students, using things that are easier for them to visualize. This helps orientate their mind for the eventual transition. If you taught that atoms as composed of wave functions, you will lose a young and even an old layman audience, since this will appear very abstract, and can cause real science to look like pseudo-science. No foundation may be built if you get to exact.
Another example is DNA is most often expressed as a double helix. This is partially true, but it is also pseudo science for laymen, since a double helix of just DNA is not bioactive. That model of DNA could not be used for evolution, as evolutionary pseudo science claims, since it is not bioactive. It may be good for long term storage of data, but it is not a useful template. Beta DNA, which so the most common conformation of DNA found in life, requires 30% chemically bonded water, by weight, to maintain a bioactive state. If you were to teach this to students, the more complicated hydrated DNA would appear like pseudo-science, even though this supported by state of the art breakthroughs in modern science technology.
I would not worry about your girlfriend, since pseudo-science is a conceptual stepping stone and allows one to exercise science skills, beyond memorizing a party line. For example, the alchemists did what would be considered pseudo science, today. In spite of that, they developed many key lab procedures like extraction and distillation, which are still used today, and which helped lead to discoveries that were closer to reality.
An analogy is teaching a child how to play a new sport. You can't make it too hard or by the book or they might get bored. You may need to let them feel free to add their own two cents, even if unconventional, so they can develop enthusiasm, for an eventual transition to by the book. Big Foot can stimulate the mind more than polar bears and cause some to seek to investigate in the field, due to the stimulation of the unknown. There they learn science based on observation and record keeping.