This is a noble thought. The problem that scientists have is that they cannot reproduce these phenonoma in a way that works with the scientific method. Hence they are not all over it. The researchers in to these matters have to take the phenonoma on its terms in order to 'figure it out'. These are hard subjects on the limits of human knowledge that just won't play the way we want them to. Perhaps our faith in science in these matters is unjustified; like how you have to go into the wild to observe a wild animal's natural behaviour (as an example), scientists, by and large, don't seem to understand not all things to be studied are necessarily equal. Perhaps our faith in them is justified; the scientists on the fringe, the mavericks, they are likely to be ones who make the break throughs, as history shows us, because they are not constrained by the same thinking as everyone else. Something to think about.
You seem to be confusing several different threads of thought here. Let's try to break it up a bit.
Scientists are materialists: well, not universally. Scientists, like all professions, cover a wide variety of beliefs and characters. Science, however, does require having something to study. Funny that. Yes, in order to study something, you have to have access to either the subject or the information on it. And yes, being able to duplicate something in a lab would be a pretty significant factor in establishing a science.
Scientists are closed minded or have their vision shuttered by blinders of Scientific method: again, not universally. There are scientists that choose to look into matters that are considered supernatural or paranormal. As far as I know, they have not succeeded in proving anything of the like exists, or that there is any probability of such a thing existing.
Not all things to be studied are equal? Science is about study. I would expect someone researching ESP to take the same strategies to explore that as any other science project: determine a methodology consistent with the topic, gather evidence, analyze, report. Investigate anything interesting. Yes, ESP is not the same as ichthyology, so the methodology of gathering information would be different.
Faith: I'd love to provide the definition of faith from Blake's7 here, but it is not admissible.
Finge/Maverick scientists make the breakthroughs: Um, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Someone else would have to provide the stats on which type provides more, as well as defining which scientists are "stodgy traditionalists" and which are "Fringers/Mavericks".
Scientists established and unwilling to question: I think scientists have to be willing to question just as a basic requirement of the title. Now, there are aspects of the human personality that are resistant to change. In archeology, there was a school of thought that said "_____ is the first group of humans to occupy North America." and rejected and discredited any attempt to prove otherwise, or even study it. It was later proven that ____ was Not the first group. This put egg on the faces of many academics, and those put down were eventually justified. But those academics were sacrificing science for prestige. In that, they were perhaps bad scientists. They eventually lost.
Do humans understand everything? No. But science is our best bet for learning.
Gravitation and Evolution are only theories. However, they are the two theories most supported by evidence of the universe around us.
Perhaps you want to believe in something so much, you are willing to ignore the evidence to the contrary?
