Is "Incremental learning" pseudo-science? I've recently come across the following article:
http://www.super-memory.com/help/il_full.htm
The author makes the claim that "Incremental learning" is the best way of learning and goes as far as to claim that the problem of "forgetting" is nearly completely avoided. For me the whole thing just sounds like advertising for the program "SuperMemo" but apparently the author Piotr Woźniak holds a PhD and is in fact a researcher. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Wo%C5%BAniak_(researcher)
Is he a known fraud or is the information presented a mainstream opinion shared by psychologists?
Thanks in advance
The merits of any given body of work is best assessed by looking at it, regardless of whether you want to label it as 'pseudoscientific' or not based on that judgement.

Unfortunately, this proved to be quite troublesome for the SuperMemo application, which makes some pretty strong claims that require justification to be considered academic. For example:


  Incremental learning is the fastest and the most comprehensive way of learning available to students at the moment of writing (2013).
  
  Incremental learning easily ensures 95% recall of top-priority learning material for lifetime


To be considered scientific, there would have to be publicly accessible publications backing up those claims. I found the following list of 50 publications in reference to SuperMemo. But, I could only find the following 4 publications out of the 50 listed on Google Scholar:


A hypothetical model of processes involved in the release of norepinephrine in the adrenergic synapse. (Gorzelańczyk &amp; Woźniak, 1991): cited by 2; the abstract seems irrelevant to the claims made
The educational technology of repetition spacing in information systems development. (Wozniak &amp; Abramowicz, 1997): 4 references, all self-citations; no tracked citations on Scholar; furthermore, listed twice in the list of 50 publications
SuperMemo (Wharton, 1994): a 5-page software review, representing a subjective case study at best ("As a new German student, I have been using SuperMemo ..."); no tracked citations
Optimization of repetition spacing in the practice of learning. (Wozniak &amp; Gorzelanczyk, 1994): 4-pager, 7 references, cited by 79


The fact that the majority of these publications are not available indicates these were not made 'archival' by the conferences/journals they were presented at. This gives a first poor assessment of the adequacy of this presented work. Rigorous, peer-reviewed, work would be accessible and cited by subsequent research.

The last paper (4 page 'short communication') with 79 citations presents:


  A universal formula for computing inter-repetition intervals
  in paired-associate learning has been determined for the knowledge
  retention level of 95%. It is claimed that the formula could be used in
  the practice of learning for a wide range of subjects, regardless
  individual learner's capacity. 


The method they employed to evaluate their algorithm:


  The subjects taking part in the experiment were 7 unpaid
  volunteers, students of computer science at the
  Technical University of Poznan. In the period of 18
  months, they memorized and repeated altogether
  over 35000 items of their choice (the items had the
  form of Polish-English word pairs). 


I'll leave it up to you to decide whether or not you agree with their conclusion:


  The obtained results unequivocally indicate the superiority of progressive repetition spacing over massed or distributed spacing and may be used in practice of learning in order to minimize time necessary for memorization and retention of the learned material.


Or, alternatively, follow-up on the 79 citations to see how experts in the field formulate the work. One example (Lindsey et al., 2014), emphasis mine:


  Outside the academic literature, two traditional adaptive-scheduling techniques have attracted a degree of
  popular interest: the Leitner (1972) system and
  SuperMemo (Wozniak &amp; Gorzelanczyk, 1994). 


Interestingly, Wozniak seemed to have been a reviewer on that paper!

Conclusion

While the SuperMemo application does seem to have made a noticeable commercial impact, of which the Wired article "Want to remember everything you'll ever learn? Surrender to this algorithm" and citations to the one paper is a good indication, it does not seem to be embedded in rigorous published scientific research.

This does not necessarily make the application 'pseudoscientific' as it might still base itself or correspond to 'proper science', but, the way the website represents itself as scientific is grossly overstated. I would not place much trust in anything written there.


Wozniak, P. A., &amp; Abramowicz, W. (1997). The educational technology of repetition spacing in information systems development. In Systems Development Methods for the Next Century (pp. 341-344). Springer, Boston, MA.
Gorzelańczyk, E. J., &amp; Woźniak, P. (1991). A hypothetical model of processes involved in the release of norepinephrine in the adrenergic synapse. BioSystems, 25(4), 275-281.
Wharton C. (1994). SuperMemo. CALICO Journal
Vol. 12, No. 1 (Fall 1994), pp. 66-70
Wozniak, P. A., &amp; Gorzelanczyk, E. J. (1994). Optimization of repetition spacing in the practice of learning. Acta neurobiologiae experimentalis, 54, 59-59.
Lindsey, R. V., Shroyer, J. D., Pashler, H., &amp; Mozer, M. C. (2014). Improving students’ long-term knowledge retention through personalized review. Psychological science, 25(3), 639-647.