First, you make good point about open-ended inductive procedure, and it seems Sheldrake uses term "physics" bit unclearly, but from the rest of the article and from other sources it can be deducted that he is referring at least mostly to the materialistic paradigm and it's so far unfulfilled promises of explanatory power. Sheldrake, if I interpret correctly, considers it extremely unlikely that materialistic paradigm could succeed, but is more open to potential of quantum biology and quantum approaches to consciousness.

Here's one attempt to link Sheldrakes views to physics: http://dnadecipher.com/index.php/ddj/article/view/16


Second, in your post to locked thread you use abstract noun "science" constantly as animate-like subject sentences in the way that creates impression that science is some kind of collective organism having opinions and views of it's own. That is bad form. I know it's idiomatic English, but what it does is to cover the fact that science is social field of lot's of different views and opinions, and instead of collective "science" as subject factual expression would be "some scientists" or "most scientists" if that is the case and can be proven to be so.

Of course telepathy is not "unobserved process" as there are tests that show effect and others that don't, and evidence is not non-existant, but remains inconclusive and subjective valuations of the plausibility of the evidence vary.