[blix]

I'm not sure the best way to judge the quality of a scientific argument is whether it 'feels like good science.'

While the author is obviously only scratching the surface in an article targetted at non-scientists, the several PhDs he cites make decent arguments that are based on a little more than feelings. It would probably be more in line with the ideal of 'good science' to actually investigate the possibilities presented than dismiss them from emotional associations.

It is a worrying trend that the way science feels is increasingly more important than the actual evidence (or lack thereof). One could even describe the current attitude towards science outside of scientitific institutions as religious.