I think it's very probable that aliens exist but for my real life it does not matter.

Oh I see. Given your impassioned comments on this story, I thought the existence of alien life might be of interest to you. But it appears that your main concern is relationships, not dying alone in a room surrounded by strangers. This doesn't concern me because at the end of the day, we all die alone, and the only thing to keep you company is the contents of your brain.

In academic science, topics have made it out of the taboo zone and into the establishment, just as vice versa.

This goes along with acceptance in mainstream society, so it's not necessarily the fault of academic science but society at large. Maybe your criticism is not against science or the scientific method but the scientists themselves.

There need be no substitute for science, I don't see why that would be necessary, however, the scientific method should not present itself as superior to everything else, I rather plead for it to be enriched by what is defined as its opposite, synthesis. In my view, however, analysis is not the opposite, but complementary to it.

I don't think the scientific method presents itself as superior. The method is what it is: just a method. Perhaps you're reacting to the scientific community, which is sometimes perceived as narrow minded, especially in the old days.

rather plead for it to be enriched by what is defined as its opposite, synthesis. In my view, however, analysis is not the opposite, but complementary to it.

Synthesis IS part of the scientific method. It's an integral aspect of it. Every scientific report has to create a synthesis of the ideas discussed that fall within the scope and depth of a given subject under scrutiny. It is impossible for any scientist to look at all facets of a problem, which is why they have to look at specific aspects of an issue and build on the work of others. Maybe the fault is not with science or scientists but with the general public who do not take an active interest in what science and scientists are saying. I know many people who say, I'm not interested in black holes, stars, gravitational waves, evolution, or the behavior of animals. They show a tremendous lack of curiosity about the world around them that I find startling. So these people don't inform themselves properly of what scientists are saying yet they are sometimes quick to criticize what they do not understand. The problem therefore is not science or scientists but the lack of curiosity by the general public who fail to question the mysteries of the universe around them and are therefore unware of what the science is showing.

The problem with the scientific method is that it can only focus on certain factors in order to arrive at unambiguous results. This unambiguity is produced by means of laboratory settings within which there must be no deviation.

There is a good reason for this. It's called the third variable problem. For example, Sweedish researchers conducted an analysis of the arrival of storks and the number of babies in Sweeden (I think it was Sweeden). They found a correlation between the arrival of storks and the birth of babies. A non-scientific approach would say, look how wonderful, the storks are bringing babies just like the old wives tales say. A scientific approach would encourage you to seek further and take into account a third or more variables. For example, the seasons. Stork arrive in Spring, which is when most babies are born because people plan for that time or some other reason. The scientific method allows us to systematically look at variables and show us how they interact, even in non-laboratory settings.

This is where I meet or return your question: how do you know that Sheldrake and others do not conduct proper experiments?

Scientists don't take him seriously because the 'experiments' he described do not follow proper protocols. He could very well be describing a stork-baby situation but because he hasn't followed the proper procedures, he fooled himself (and others) into believing his ideas, intriguing as they are. He may be the guy saying, "look the storks are bringing babies," when in fact something entirely different is happening.

Sheldrake...seems not being a zealot and basically calls on his readers and listeners again and again to set up experiments themselves and carry them out at schools or universities. Only the brave and the deviant follow this call, because it is risky.

This is where the issue arises. Without proper scientific methods, one personal experiments remain merely anecdotal. They may enrich one's personal life, but unless one follows the proper procedures, then the results and findings remain merely anecdotal or fiction. Thus, one cannot say, my truth is a general truth that describes the state of the world. Sheldrake puts himself out there by saying that his truth is a universal scientific truth, therefore the onus is on him to prove it. Unfortunately, as far as I understand, he has not done so because his 'experiments' are riddled with problems. We won't know the truth until the scientific method is properly applied to test his ideas. For now, they remain in the realm of fantasy.

It seems important to me to accept such dissenters and to take up an idea as worthy of research precisely because it contradicts the common picture of the world. I interpret that you have also a positive attitude towards those deviators.

Outliers are important, no doubt, but if we are going to accept someone's world view, we need to do the hard work. We need to be able to analyze the methods and procedures used to arrive at those truths. Otherwise, our truth, is just an opinion. Opinions are a great place to start an inquiry (and write a good sci-fi story) but not a good place to stop in search of the truth.

I see no chance to prepare myself for meeting aliens. No preparation whatsoever will avoid me the surprise and shock related to an encounter of utmost strangeness. If I would be amongst the first ones, I may go insane. If, on the other hand, those aliens would appear like humans, I see no need for being prepared but go with the flow.

I believe that our generations will be less 'shocked' if we meet aliens because we have become accustomed to the idea, in part thanks to story telling. This is one of the roles of story telling in my opinion. They present us with potential blueprints of the future that prepare us for what is to come. The idea of aliens may seem shocking, and even heretical, to a person from medieval times, but for someone who has grown up on a steady diet of science fiction, the idea is not far fetched.

But when I talk about being prepared, I'm not talking about preparing psychologically. I'm talking about preparing ourselves socially, politically, economically, and militarily. The existence of aliens has repercussions beyond philosophy and get to the root of our very own existence.