@ Aeon: In my view, any courses in astronomy that you can take, do so, plus all the math that goes with them. In the last three years I've been busy refreshing myself on a lot of stuff, and I find it to be extremely useful information. First, not everything in mainstream astronomy is wrong, much less stupid. If you think that is at the root of the problems we are facing, let me disabuse you of that idea. Second, you really need to know how and why people in astronomy attack the problems in the field.
For example, ingenious observations and conclusions and complicated math have gone into building the ladder of "standard candles" to estimate cosmic distances. Notwithstanding the fact that they are not nearly so standardized and are much less accurate than press releases would lead the average person to believe, it will always help your logical arguments if you understand how they get their ideas and what techniques they use to draw the conclusions that they do, no matter which part of astronomy you are dealing with. Want to understand what is looked at in spectroscopic studies of stars, you need to understand emission and absorption spectra, red shift, some fusion theory, radiation models, blackbody theory, and even how our eyes perceive color in our limited sense in the EM spectrum. A good astronomical background will give you this stuff. Unless you venture into courses involved in "Physics of Dusty Plasmas" and cosmic plasma physics in general, it's likely that is only offered on a graduate level, after the student has a firm grounding in astronomical physics except for the electrodynamic parts!
Bear in mind that the EU looks at much the same data as astrophysicists and cosmologists. We have to; we are not afforded observing time and access to all of the data banks, because we aren't "in the business". (As NEreid has pointed out when she was posting here on this Forum, there are really a lot of publicly available sources for data and even available programs with which to manipulate or observe those data. Not all of us, including me, have been trained in the proper use of such data sets and their tools, I might note. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, as someone else famously said.
The EU also looks for links in a wide variety of other events, disciplines and types of science, which affords a great many possible ways of putting together (linking) underlying causes behind the often obscure curtain of uncertainty. It's no wonder we are able to draw different conclusions from the same data! In the EU paradigm, the electrodynamics of plasma and electricity in space are essential and basic to the understandings we are after. In astronomy theory, there is too much other important stuff to understand first, nearly all based on gravity-controlled dynamics. You don't get to mess with the dangerous stuff until you've memorized the basic approaches they want you to understand and have faith in, during your undergraduate work. They think this is a good grounding - which it is, in its own way - and we think of it as "preconditioning" - which it is, in its own way.
If you are planning to take courses in astronomy, find a good school and take a typical sequence and learn it well. If you are interested in comparing it with the EU model (which might not always have exactly the "right" answers) make notes, and ask questions here. Trying to ask leading questions of your prof, unless she is a closet admirer of Thunderbolts, is not likely to end satisfactorily. DO ask questions like, "how do we know that..." or "how do we estimate the probability that...", or "Can you head me toward some of the references where these ideas came from?" Any good student is expected to do that, anyhow. Those are the students that make a prof feel like she's striking some sparks of interest. And some of those things might lead you into unexpected but fruitful pathways.
If you are interested in plasma, ask questions about how the Sun or stars in general work, from a plasma perspective, and be sure you understand the code words like "hot gases" and "winds" that are used to describe what goes on in plasma phenomena. And always bear in mind that Alfvén tried to point out to astrophysicists that the straightforward MHD model that he had come up with and won the Nobel over, was not, except in rare cases, able to provide a realistic simulation of the complexity of real plasma behavior, even though it is a wonderful tool in condensed matter fluids where gravity and viscosity and Reynolds numbers are the main players. Best of luck to you. This will present a lifetime of challenging work, believe me.