Karl Popper introduced a metaphor of demarcation for identification of claims that should not be classified as scientific. This metaphor still dominates the philosophical discussion on pseudoscience. We show that it has hampered the discussion in several ways, most importantly by blocking the insight that determining whether some particular claim is pseudoscientific usually requires specialized scientific expertise. We conclude that it would be better to give up this metaphor and leave room for the two tasks of defining pseudoscience (a task for philosophers) and diagnosing potential cases of pseudoscience (a task for experts in the respective areas of science).