On observation and theory:
I like to think of theory as a black box. We know the conditions and results of what happens (observation), but we do not know why things happen (the mechanism inside the black box). A theory is our guess as to what's inside the black box... If the theory can't be disproved, then it's good enough to be virtually true (until it's disproved, of course).
On celestial and planetary motion:
With all due respect but by direct observation the sun does appear to orbit the earth and the stars observably wheel across the sky with the earth at the center of the rotation. We needed to devise entirely new methods of observation before the 'evidence' our eyes was refuted. Without either endorsing or condemning ESP, just based on the history of science I have to allow for the possibility that we have not yet devised a suitable method of observing a phenomenon many people believe to be real, just as observing the true rotation of the earth was not possible prior to the invention of telescopes.
In fact without a telescope and certain kinds of measurements my eyes still tell me the sun and stars move and I don't.
And technically one can not observe the sub-atomic particles within the nucleus of an atom either.
Subatomic particles can never be directly visualized. First, the wavelengths that would interact with same are FAR too energetic, so you could never work with radiation of that wavelength. Second, since the smallest "tip" you can have in a microscopy type of technique is an atom, you cannot use that type of approach to visualize something smaller than an atom (and even the easy subatomic particles, such as protons, neutrons, and electrons, are millions of times smaller than whole atoms). However, since most subatomic particles are extremely energetic, they interact with matter in predictable ways. The classic way that they were indirectly visualized was with cloud chambers--atoms would be smashed together in gas, and when they would essentially explode you'd see lines and curves of bubbles forming in the gas in ways that could be mathematically predicted based on the knowledge of the particles. Many subatomic particles were also discovered in such ways, because people saw lines and curves in the bubble chambers that they couldn't explain, so they realized a new particle must exist.
On the contrary, while the sun does appear to orbit the Earth, the planets do not... And that observation was made many, many centuries before Copernicus postulated a heliocentric universe.
The unpredictable motion of the planets baffled astronomers, and many came up with complex theories to predict planetary motion (but ultimately could not). A heliocentric system was a simple solution to this complex problem, while still being able to predict the motion of other celestial bodies. But the idea was so thoroughly rejected in favour of a geocentric one.
Why? Because the idea that the Earth was not the centre of the universe was simply unfathomable. Again,
why? Because Aristotle.
Aristotle's philosophies had
very strong influence at the time, and the church promoted Aristotle because a lot of his theories agreed with religious theology.
His geocentric universe (surrounded by perfect crystal spheres (in which were perfect spherical bodies; stars), outside of which was some
force controlling the motion of the spheres) so agreed with the idea of God controlling the motions of the perfect, unblemished, heavens that surround our shitty planet that the theory became Pope-approved science!
Often you will find that the mistakes in our theories, and our resistance to change the way we think as a flaw of humans and our attachment to the pre-existing ideas (proposed by society, religion, and yes, science (or rather, the institutions and upholders of science that have become so powerful)) we have known all our lives. But it is not the fault of the scientific method.
On subatomic particles:
They are not directly observable, but we can observe their influence on the world. Essentially, they are the mechanism inside the black box...
(Just like how Higgs particles explain why some massless particles have mass.)
...
The fault of science is that it believes it's right and fails to learn the fundamental lesson of its own history. Existing theories may 'work' in terms of current knowledge but may, just may be overturned entirely tomorrow consigning it to the history books.
...
Why is it any different now? Science is as hampered by the limitations of its own belief structures as it ever was because people are people and are prone to being blind to things outside of their own beliefs.
Whether its the possibility of time travel, ESP or eternal life (or evolution) at any moment some one who can break through the barrier of the disbelief of belief can turn all we know on its head, as has happened so many times in the past.
I think that is a strength of science, and not a fault. It believes it's right, until it's not... and can then admit it's wrong and change it's theories to explain the observations that don't make sense. (Therefore it is forever right?)
Well, yes, all belief structures are like that, including science. To be otherwise is to be ambivalent...
Science is not infallible that's the whole point. Observations are made, theories are proposed based upon observation and experiments are devised to test the theories. When the experiments don't work or produce unexpected results the theories are superceded by new theories and tested with new experiments.
It doesn't require belief, it's method, when you say 'with our current ability this is what we can observe' that is very true of science in general. Science doesn't have to correspond with ancient unchanging books of myth and doctrine, what is observed is the basis of scientific enquiry, nothing more, nothing less.
Telepathy is a myth, there are people that believe in it but that isn't backed up by observation, no observation, no dice.
Science is a belief system (and if you want, it can be called advanced metaphysics). People don't have to believe in science (and they didn't at first), but science has become so powerful, and has proven it's worth time and time again. Something other belief systems have failed to do, science has gained credibility.
Telepathy isn't that far out there. We are already on the brink of using mind-controlled technologies (thanks to BCI's, they are available, mainly for the disabled, but very expensive)... what's to say telepathic communication won't be possible in the future too?
... That probably wasn't what you were thinking of...
and I know better than to exclude the possibility 
