Talk:Ball lightning

	This Pseudoscience related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Considering that they're making guns which use it nowadays, this is a bit out of date. Tarantallegra 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Linkies? ħuman 01:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

here you go. Looks like I was wrong, they need a bit of funding to get it to weapon status, all they did so far is "In the ’80s, Koloc’s team succeeded in creating small, short-lived plasmoids from "chicken egg to softball" size in the laboratory." Well, the article makes it sound as if they are still depending on witnesses rather than lab reproductions of the phenomena. However, looking deeper into it I am not sure what to believe, it seems as if it is indeed a subject this wiki is made to cover. Tarantallegra (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

Why? That was a terrible sentence that made no sense to me.^{— Unsigned, by: ArJay / talk / contribs}

I agree. Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes or by clicking the signature button above the edit box. Генгис^marauding 12:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rework

Maybe this should be reworked to show how science works, and that when sufficient evidence becomes available - and only when sufficient evidence becomes available - something becomes "scientific"?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

See Also

Why does the 'See Also' section include 'Continental Drift"? What does that have to do with ball lightning?

I can only guess it's some editor's attempt to suggest that ball lightning is now what continental drift used to be: a fringe area that eventually matures into real science. Very associative indeed. I'll remove it. --84.151.168.158 (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, Lights in the night redirects to Unidentified flying object, and UFO is already linked in the first paragraph, rendering the other link redundant too and the "See also" section unnecessary altogether. Therefore, I'll remove the section. --84.151.168.158 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Breaking News

The first emission spectrum of ball lightning has been measured! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning , section 'Direct measurements of natural ball lightning', for those of you who want to update the article.^{— Unsigned, by: 173.72.162.61 / talk / contribs} 23:16, 19 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Argument from authority?

Isn't "reliable witnesses such as pilots and professors" just the sort of tactic ufologists use? (as an aside, I personally have witnessed ball lightning myself. However, this was in 1978 and 1980, so I think we can see some problems already.) Scherben (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Riddle me this (swinging question mark pimp cane)

What fallacy is made in this sentence from the article: "who declare that acceptance of ball lightning means that the rest of their ideas automatically have some merit."?--Harkinian (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That sentence doesn't 'make' any fallacy, it describes a fallacy of False Equivalence. FairDinkum (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)