I agree it's a little silly. But I think it might be more charitably described as "speculation that remains intriguing to ponder, even though it has no evidenti

I agree it's a little silly. But I think it might be more charitably described as "speculation that remains intriguing to ponder, even though it has no evidentiary support." And the reason they inject it is, of course, that certain readers are more interested in thinking about that kind of stuff than hard scientific evidence. If you really think this is just "spasmodic blather," then I think you may be missing a lot of important things about the human experience--and even, I'd submit, some of the true wonder of science. (This is not to say, however, that you must find it interesting, much less persuasive. I don't.)