Xenocrates said:
The original formulation of gravity included no explanation. I prefer scientists to push boundaries by tackling difficult and/or seditious questions. It wasn't so long back that they swore blind that GM genes wouldn't escape into the environment; now we find that we're swimming in them. There's an unhealthy streak of conservatism and blind faith in modern science that needs to be addressed (actually it's always been there). There's also the more serious question of big business biasing the experiments that are done and their results.
Maybe the coupling process (if there is one) is achieved by genetic connection, emotional connection (someone mentioned empathy) or something else explicable. I have no idea - we won't know unless we look and as far as I'm concerned it's as valid an area of research as any other.
The coupling process is currently well-defined by the theory that explains it, and no part of this theory suggests that coupling happens at long distance. If coupling is involved, we need a how (or a why).
The problem with tackling difficult questions is that they're not always the important ones. Repeating simple experiments to get simple results might well be very useful. It will still be science.
Scientists never swore blind that GM genes would not spread. There have been many of us who saw the problems and didn't accept the answers. The problem with blind faith in science is not that scientists have it, but that 'laymen' have it. You cannot have faith in science in the same way that you might accept every moral pronouncement your priest makes. Science is evidence based, not authority-based.
So people make press-releases saying that they're scientists and their crops will be safe. What's new? Should you accept it simply because they call themselves scientists? Of course not. A real scientist will expect some sort of explanation; they provided explanations, and these were torn apart. But people in government (or wherever) simply had blind faith in the claim that 'it's science'.
However, knowledge that science will eventually reach the correct conclusion is acceptable. When cientific theories are debunked, people think 'oh, science has failed', when it's science that has led to the debunking! Science has succeeded again! Science is a process, not a belief system. It works, but only on its own terms: importantly, these are empirical.
Conservatism is useful in science. Science requires fameworks of theories in order to work. If a theory has been tested and not disproven, one should be wary of proposing a replacement because of Occam's razor. It is only when a replacement is really needed that change is considered, at which point scientists move in bulk to the new opinion, because the weight of evidence has changed.
You are right that there are problems with the modern attitude to science, but your position has gone too far. Science is not wrong; we may be, but it gives us the highest chance of being right.
How can you complain about science and at the same time support the scientific investigation of 'phenomena'? Science is a vital tool in increasing our knowledge and understanding of the world. If people reach wrong conclusions, it is science that enabled them to make any conclusions at all, and it is science that will eventually show them what is right.
You ever walked along a bus queue and heard the BS conversations that other people are having? It's the same in science labs. To the credit of OT we don't talk that kind of banality very often!
) is incomplete. This isn't surprising since no one has really nailed down how it works. 
).
Why should quantum effects such as this not occur in the brain and, for that matter, in cell determination too? 
After that I became a dissident. 
) is that after Watson and Crick published their double helix, almost everyone got hypnotised by it and proteins were neglected. I wrote something about the history of evolution a few years ago and came across this. The paper on prions isn't the only evidence that proteins are now being studied more carefully. Isn't someone mapping them like the human genome project?
