I am more inclined to listen to someone with an OM than a poster on here who calls out the owner of the blog, who just happens to be a Phd and best seller.

But, WaddaIknow?

Logic depends on facts.

No, it is the other way around, facts and theories can usefully need logic to be constructed and tested.

But there ends the dependence. I find it curious indeed that people tries to assign static truth values to facts, as they are a dynamical property of the process of knowledge gathering. Facts and hypotheses doesn’t have truth values; before observation respectively verification they are in degrees “not known, possible, impossible, likely, unlikely”, and after they are “accepted, rejected”. Formal logic comes up empty in describing this process.

For Phil to call mere mention of details of these topics “antiscience” or “pseudoscience”, and to report them dishonestly, is trolling of the first order.

It is antiscience simply because you attack verified science without a factual basis. If anyone attacks verified science from a factual basis he is either a crank or, unlikely, correct – but a factually empty antiscientist is a fraud, “not even wrong”.

Btw, a poster can’t troll, as he is responsible for answering on his post. A troll is “a person who is deliberately inflammatory on the Internet in order to provoke a vehement response”. Such as, say, yourself.

While Phil’s intention is to enjoy himself, (obviously) present the science from his basis as a scientist, and keep a semblance of order on his blog. Which reasonably means keeping trolls short and, on a science blog, point out when people drags antiscience into it.

Which “plasma ‘work’” are you imagining? Plasma fluid dynamics is a mature field. Maxwell’s electromagnetics is more than a century old. For Phil to call mere mention of details of these topics “antiscience” or “pseudoscience”, and to report them dishonestly, is trolling of the first order. To level random accusations at anyone who calls attention to such dishonesty compounds it. Why not be part of the solution? Learn, and educate.

Nathan, it is the way you use the “I’m no scientist”, “Oh, an astronomer, then?” phrasing. Please don’t insult my intelligence by pretending it wasn’t an insult. And speaking of intelligence, IVAN3MAN (yes, I am well aware that probably isn’t on his driver’s licence) used merde as an expression of frustration. Try looking it up; an online dictionary should be adequate. Here’s another word to look up; troll. Beyond the definition of a mythical creature, you will find another that fits your behaviour here.
Oh, and you could match up comments to their authors a little better. I believe that it was Arnold Martin that used the word “proponent”. Sloppy work like that does you no credit. If your plasma “work” is as riddled with errors, it’s going to be hard to get people to take you seriously.

What is this controversy that needs to be taught.

@MERDE!: Look up “proponent”. Compare to “advocate”. Discuss.

Fortunately, I saved the draft copy of it onto WordPad, so I can submit my comment again if the bloody computer will let it through!

This over aggressive spamming of one’s legitimate comment(s) could be avoided if potential commenters were required to register before submitting a comment, as is the case on RichardDawkins.net and JREF, the latter of which you, Phil, are El Presidente (Congratulations! James Randi couldn’t have picked a better person).

Subsequently, if anyone then abuses their membership with inappropriate comments, links to offensive web-sites, or foul language, they can be banned to the troll — mentioning no names — thread after “three strikes and your out!”.

@MERDE!: Facts, please. Logic depends on facts.

I tried to submit a logical response to Nathan Myers, with links to various articles, and it got “spammed” by the system!

I don’t know what an “Electric Universe proponent” would be; E-M and plasma phenomena are directly observed. Many astronomers, yourself included, seem instead to be Infinite-Conductivity Universe or Gravity-Only Universe proponents, both of which are unphysical and, frankly, ludicrous. When you find yourself reaching for unobservables like neutron stars and dark matter to avoid applying well-known (albeit too “fiendishly difficult”) physics, recognize that you’re in a hole and stop digging.

Maybe you’re used to other astronomers giving you a free pass? We both know you can understand all about photon absorption without knowing the first thing about plasma fluid dynamics. Paleontologists and chemists don’t bluff and bluster on their blogs, they’re completely open about how little they really know. Why must astronomers blow smoke?

How big is this thing across?