I have no idea how Geordi and Ro were breathing or how they were able to walk on matter they should logically be phasing through. For some reason, back when it originally aired I think most Trekkies were just into the drama and the rather sometimes unscientific sci-fi of the show and were willing to overlook certain things if other aspects made up for the apparent lack of logic in other areas.
I just watched the episode I, Borg. I haven't seen this episode in ages. Anyways I thought it was interesting given my interest in ethics lately. I just think its interesting that in Star Trek, in both TNG AND DS9 it's all about the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Basically this is something I've heard about called Utilitarian consequentialism. This is where an action is deemed moral or ethical if it achieves the best outcome for the most people. Now, in I, Borg, Picard and company are more than happy to make plans that they should use this Borg that they captured, send him back to his collective as a weapon to destroy the Borg.
On DS9 the Federation did something similar. They created a mutagenic virus, infected Odo with it in an attempt to wipe out the race known as the Founders. Here is the exception. Picard ultimately decided against using the Borg as a weapon against his race, showing the great moral resolve of the TNG crew. However, the Federation decided not to give the cure to the mutagenic virus to the founders. Ideally, the heroes of these shows would be like Captain America in Avengers: Infinity War. I know this is a little OT but hear me out. Anyway in the movie and always AFAIK the coda for Cap has been "We don't trade lives". Captain America's ethics fall in line with what's called deontology, where no outcomes can justify heinous things like murder.
I guess in the end, I just find it funny that a comic book character from the 1940's has arguably better ethics than the Federation of the distant future.