This is perhaps the most balanced thing I have found to start you off.
Beware, it contains content from Rupert Sheldrake, a figure who if you're not familiar with, ruffles the feathers of skeptics everywhere. ;)
http://www.josephvoelbel.com/blog/rupert-sheldrake-on-the-speed-of-light-and-big-g
keep in mind that i get to hide behind the fact that I don't believe or disbelieve, I allow possibility and wait for further evidence.
When it comes to issues like 'will i fall off this cliff if i take another step?', I err on the side of caution as evidence strongly suggests i will fall, however on issues like this i find it more interesting to hold back and keep exploring the possibilities and the evidence.
I don't see why we should hold out examining the evidence that's in right now to make a tentative judgment of what seems to be the case and what doesn't.
I think this is an utter and very common misconception about science, most scientists especially physicists spend their time testing out theories and questioning our understanding of reality, not defending it. No self-respecting physicist will claim that we have all the answers. The claim is always, we have all this evidence and it seems to entail this and we have this level of certainty based on the amount of data we're gathered. It's never a dogmatic postulation that cannot and should not be challenged.
LOL :P I'll check his claims out. The article you've shared talks about circumstances not substance, but the name looks googlable enough ;)