When does a subject qualify as a subject of science? Consider ball lightning. This phenomenon was long thought to be a simple matter of false perceptions and exaggerations. Now I understand that this is considered to be a genuine meteorological phenomenon. When and how did this happen? The pictures that I have seen don't constitute proof of this claim. I don't think we have ever made the stuff to any degree of satisfaction. Earthquake lights are another example. This used to be treated as pseudoscience. Now it is used to explain other pseudoscientific propositions. When did this happen. Where is the evidence for these phenomena? How does a disputed subject make this transition? Is this just a matter of a popularity head count? Is there some kind of magic number? Does one, or one hundred good pieces of evidence constitute a credible subject? You all know where I'm coming from, but I think the question is valid. Despite the best efforts of many credible scientists, some subjects mysteriously remain taboo. Were Einstein an Heisenberg right: Science progresses one death at a time.