There are people who study how we know stuff. After all the way you "know" that chairs hold you up is different from the way you "know" string theory explains the birth of the universe. Or that language evolved before tool usage. People use "know" and "science" to describe both, but they're different kinds of knowledge.

This is why no matter what the topic (almost), somebody can call it pop science. A lot of what people get angry about is just non-science reporters covering scientists who might exaggerate a bit. I can see where it gets them angry, but I am not sure that it is anything purposefully-bad going on.

So let's define pop-science as things that have broad audience appeal but little in the way of advancing the underlying conversation.

Once we define it like that, anything appearing in a popular forum that strikes up controversy? Most likely it's fluff. Every now and then, about 1 time in 100, there's really something interesting going on. Usually it's just non-scientists enjoying playing mental Star Trek and scientists scoffing at the terrible reporting.

Likewise, any book that tells me things I want to hear, or supports some larger overall narrative about how large groups of people feel about the world, is pop science. You see these a lot in the softer fields where "science" is much more a matter of opinion than anything else.

Hope that helps.

By the way, pop-science can be fun! You just have to know what you're consuming.