Reply:
Electrical scarring aside for the moment. You raise a recurring point regarding conventional science and the various attempted replacements. There are a number of currently unexplained, or explained in too little detail for us to be happy, phenomena. That's life in science. No big deal. As I said, if we had all the answers we wouldn't be doing science (and wouldn't have any science to do).

So, we face a currently unexplained observation. Conventional science looks and says: either we have the tools already, but haven't been bright enough to figure out how to apply them (what Kuhn calls 'normal science' or 'puzzle solving') or there is some new science to be learned (Kuhn went way overboard on this one, but call it 'paradigm shifting' anyhow). Most of the time, 'puzzle solving' works, as happened with the recent explanations of the earth's dynamo and coronal heating.

So take a look at 'paradim shifting'. The two most spectular paradigm shifts in physics this century were quantum mechanics and general relativity. Huge spectacular shifts, just ask the people who were involved. But, after general relativity, _all_ of Newton's laws were preserved in the realms in which they'd been tested. We still use Newtonian mechanics for guiding our interplanetary probes and the like. Even after quantum mechanics (and its derivative, quantum electrodynamics), we still use classical electromagnetism for telecommunications, radar, etc. Again, there's an extensive realm in which the preceeding science was tested, and it works in that realm. In both cases, and in the others as well, the principle of correspondence holds. The new theory gives the same predictions as the old theory within the realm in which the old theory has been tested.

So, regardless of whether there is an observation that conventional science can't explain (there's a lot more than one, that's why we're still doing science), we know that failure to explain that observation does not mean we're going to abandon: charge, mass, energy, angular momentum conservation, gravity as an inverse square force on planetary and solar system scales, electromagnetism as an inverse square force on similar scales, etc. The expectation that if there is _one_ unxplained observation we can replace _any_ part of science with whatever we like, is not merely absurd, it is wrongheaded. It denies the fact that there is a lot that current science explains quite well.