The basic cat scenario isn't "interesting" yet, you're right, it's just "we don't know." Importantly you would expect this result even if the cat was observed. You'd still observe a dead cat at the end, or chances at a live cat at different points during the experiment. (The original thought experiment killed the cat randomly over a time span using radioactive decay to release poison randomly during the time).

The science part here, is that a hypothesis has been proposed about the inner workings, and the "so what?" objection is a valid question. If the "so what?" is nothing, it's just an idea.

The "so what?" part is where the science happens. In trying to promote the idea (hypothesis) as a working idea with evidence (theory) We look for side effects of the idea that are expected to be different than our existing ideas (theories). We expect to see a cat when we open the box, and it's alive or dead. That's not interesting. But let's actually ask a science-like question of the consequences. These aren't related to the quantum mechanics questions really, but it's the sort of "consequences" questions that do get asked.

Maybe we can do the experiment over a longer time, like a week. We put the cat in the box with food and water. In the original experiment the poison is released at a random time during the week. So under our existing understanding (theory) we expect, if we run the experiment a hundred times we would see that random amounts of food and water are left pretty much evenly from 0% to 100% depending on when the cat randomly actually died.

Here is a different idea (hypothesis) about the side effects: If the cat really is alive and dead as hypothesized, it will use only the part of the food the 'alive' part would use, which is reasonably predictable. It changes by percentage over the week from 100% (alive) to 0% (fully dead). This means we should always see the same, or similar amounts of food and water left at the end. This is different than the usual prediction!

Now we have a new idea, a hypothesis that relies on consequences of the first hypothesis. So we run 100 experiments, and unlike our current understanding of cat mortality, we find that in this case the remaining food and water values a grouped up at about 50%! We can even do a control where the cat is observed the entire week, and we find that under these "observed" conditions our expected spread of values does happen. We've proven that our previous idea isn't enough to explain everything, and we have tested a prediction of the new idea, so our previous theory isn't "wrong" but it isn't entirely accurate, and the new hypothesis has gained evidence to become a new more complete theory.

Now in the real world at the cat scale, we definitely would NOT expect this to be the case, and real science is much more complicated. It's easy to make errors in predictions, or have "confounding" factors that throw off our investigations. But the initial investigations into spooky action were every bit as bizarre and unexpected. We're learning how things work at the atomic scale, and it turns out that while they mostly behaved as we though they did, there are some odd edge cases that really turn things on their head. Much like we don't poison cats in our day to day life, just in thought experiments (I hope), we don't interact with spooky action in science a whole lot either. But as we learn more, it informs our understanding, and frequently leads some unexpected concequences.

For an excellent real-world consequence, under the classic model, photosythesis is too efficient. It requires quantum entanglement to explain the efficiency! http://io9.com/new-evidence-that-plants-get-their-energy-usi...