Thanks for sharing.
I've been doing a book study this semester with some of my students, of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's Science Set Free. We've been studying a couple chapters a week together for the past 4 weeks. This Monday will be our 5th and final study session.
In the book, he talks about the 'paranormal' actually being quite normal (i.e. the vast majority of people report having experienced such things).
He also argues that our reluctance to scientifically investigate such phenomena is actually hindering genuine scientific progress.
I am a skeptic at heart and chose this book for a book study because I expected to identify with Dr. Sheldrake's skepticism about 'modern science', and the perspective that, truth be told, we actually know far less than we think we do. And, I was not disappointed in that expectation -- we both share that same skepticism.
However, I started reading the book being equally skeptical about Dr. Sheldrake's personal theories and attempts to explain the unexplainable. To my surprise, however, I ended up concluding that most of his theories trying to explain the seemingly inexplicable actually match the observable world around us better than the 'modern scientific' explanations. I'm not saying that his theories are correct, just that he does a better job (imho) of presenting theories and hypotheses that match 'all' observations than anything else I've seen to date.
I agree with you that
some of the things people tend to call "paranormal" now will simply be explained by science within the next 50 years or so