Societies and Institutions that investigate so-called paranormal phenomena exist to promote the rational study of issues and phenomena that may elucidate the true nature of man, and which are inadequately addressed by mainstream science.

The evidence for paranormal faculties and events raises important philosophical and scientific issues. This paper recommends the setting up of a pro-active and systematic programme to:

• stimulate, guide and support research into these issues;
• promote integration of the findings of such research into the orthodox world view.

Psychical research studies phenomena that seem to have a bearing on the nature of man, and are apparently inexplicable by any orthodox hypothesis. The intended consequence of such research is either to find an orthodox explanation, or to bring about an appropriate extension of orthodoxy. In this model the field of psychical research might shrink over time, and if orthodoxy is extended in ways that change the current paradigm then individual psychical researchers could become leading edge mainstream researchers.

However, it should be recognised that the real aim of the research is not to tidy up or expand science per se, but rather to find satisfactory answers to deep human questions that are as yet not within the capacity of orthodoxy to answer. Psychical research is a tactic aimed at extending the capacity of science in this direction, based on the strategic assumption that investigation of such unexplained phenomena is an efficient route to such extension.

Fundamental Questions:

Psychical research ultimately aims to answer the most profound questions we can ask. Following Descartes, our uncertainties start immediately beyond the conviction of our personal existence. We exist, but what is this I that exists? Our doubts are perhaps even stronger than Descartes', for we are more deeply aware of the fragility and relativity of our notions of self, personality, mind and identity.

Accepting the inference "I exist", one is immediately confronted by how much is left unexplained. "What am I?" must be a formulation of our profoundest mystery. It is at the root of a raft of inter-linked questions that have driven scientific and philosophical effort since the dawn of culture:

These issues go to the heart of what it means to be human, questioning both our nature and our place in the natural scheme.

Psychical research has an important contribution to make to the scientific and philosophical effort to answer these questions. However, given the limited resources available to psychical research, it is imperative that this endeavor be focused in a strategic way. It is therefore imperative to establish a considered programme of prioritised investigation tasks that specifically targets the research that will most rapidly improve the quality of orthodox answers to these questions. To establish such an agenda, we must be very clear and specific about why we consider the answers provided by current orthodoxy to be inadequate. Only then would we be in a position to consider what research might have the greatest impact on improving the mainstream paradigm. Getting this groundwork in place will be no small task, but it is an essential underpinning for systematic progress.

To answer the fundamental questions, we must employ orthodoxy, else our answers have no scientific or philosophical validity. When contemplating the current best-in-class answers, orthodoxy may be considered to be incomplete or unsatisfactory two main ways:

• data may exist that appears to bear on a question/issue, but this data is not accounted for by orthodoxy (e.g. the existence of data relating to ganzfeld remote viewing may imply that the orthodox model of sensory perception is incomplete) (e.g. Utts 1996);
• orthodoxy could involve concepts and distinctions that are philosophically inadequate (e.g. one may argue that the orthodox view that regards mind to be an epiphenomenon of brain activity fails to engage key issues relating to our conception or experience of mind, e.g. citing cases of normal mental development despite abnormal brain development (e.g. Lorber 1965), or continuity of personality and memory despite major brain trauma (e.g. Lashley 1930), or the generation of memories while the brain is clinically inactive (e.g. Moody 1973) ).

The existence of these 'shortcomings' are at the heart of the motivation to promote psychical research, and point to the two fundamental guiding activities that should be undertaken.

Firstly, to guide the effort aimed at incorporating anomalous data into orthodoxy, a comprehensive baseline summary of such anomalous data should be established (An Anomalies Catalogue). This baseline would exist not only as a challenge to the orthodox paradigm, but also as an invaluable reference for theorists, experimenters and field workers. Without a clear assessment of what has been established, effort and opportunities will be wasted. Work will be repeated unnecessarily, opportunities will be missed due to ignorance, and important work that is feasible will not be undertaken because its relative importance is not appreciated.

Secondly, the philosophical questions and issues that orthodoxy seems to fumble should be enumerated (An Open Issues Catalogue), to support a coordinated and systematic effort to identify experiments and/or field work that may yield data that would illustrate the distinctions philosophy asserts should be made (e.g. to identify investigations that might show whether 'minds' are separate entities from 'brains').

 A Catalogue of Anomalies:

A Catalogue of findings indicating apparently anomalous phenomena would be a valuable reference document that would help us to:

• ensure that important findings are not lost from view;
• ensure that relevant findings are taken into account when theoretical work is undertaken;
• identify where significant opportunities for theoretical or experimental work exist.

The ways in which data can be organised in such a catalogue presents a complex classification problem. Since the data is for the present unexplained, there is no clear theoretical basis that could provide a non-arbitrary framework for classification. Worse, there is in principle no overall coherency to the data since it does not represent a field of knowledge in itself, but rather a kind of 'holding area' for data awaiting confirmation, acceptance and taking up into orthodoxy.

I do consider, however, that ways exist in which the data can be organised that are relatively free of theoretical bias or prior assumptions about mechanisms that might account for the data. It is my intention to present one such organisational scheme in a subsequent paper.

Once a suitable classification system has been worked out, the task remaining is to provide for each kind of phenomenon

• a summary of the strongest case(s) of that kind (with its publication references);
• a listing of the main characteristics of the phenomenon (attributes, context, variations, rarity, etc.).

To this might be added for each phenomenon:

• a summary of advocacy and counter-advocacy arguments regarding the merits of the main supporting case(s) (with publication references);
• a quality rating for the(se) case(s).

This Catalogue could usefully be presented as a searchable database published on a CD ROM and/or via a web-site.

A review of pertinent philosophical issues would be a useful reference in support of identifying research that might challenge the ontological roots of the current paradigm. Such a catalogue would:

• enumerate open philosophical issues (e.g. whether mind is separate from brain);
• consider whether these issues are scientifically well-framed questions using well-defined concepts;
• propose lines of investigation that might enable the clarity of these questions and concepts to be improved

While the Anomalies Catalogue might contain interesting evidence supporting the notion of post-mortem mental survival, the Open Issues Catalogue would say examine the coherency of the survival concept. We cannot pose a question such as "Does the human personality survive the death of the physical body?" without raising concerns about the meaningfulness, coherency, consistency and adequacy of the fundamental concepts and premises involved in posing such a question. In this example we would have to review inter alia whether non-physical is a meaningful concept, and to what extent personal identity is a function of environment and time. If a challenge to the orthodox worldview is to be mounted, then the challenge has to be framed in scientifically robust concepts. The way forward is to clearly enumerate these issues and questions, and to establish a consensus interpretation of the concepts used.

An Open Issues Catalogue and an Anomalies Catalogue are essential tools in defining research projects that might

• extend the explanatory and predictive competence of mainstream science, and
• strengthen (and possibly transform) the philosophical basis of the orthodox paradigm.

Once such Catalogues exist, research bodies and sponsors of research would be in a strong position to systematically identify key research projects and prioritise demands on their research resources.

Lashley, K.S. (1930) Basic Neural Mechanisms in Behavior. Psychological Review, 37, 1-24

Lorber, J. 1965. Hydranencephaly with normal development. Develop. Med. & Child Neurol., 7, pp 628-633).

Moody, R. 1973. Life after Life. Atlanta, Georgia: Mockingbird.

Utts, J.M. 1996. An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning. JSE 10:3-30.