Surveys show that if you ask a random selection of people what they think of the paranormal, you will find that nearly three quarters feel that there is something in it. Moreover, about half say that they, or people they know, have experienced something that they can't explain. While much of this may be misinterpretation, self-delusion or even hoaxing, there are still many cases which are very hard to dismiss.

Unfortunately, many of these reports are couched in terms which pre-suppose some model of how the 'odd experience' is happening. Often, these 'explanations' make free with the terminology of science, using them in ways that are at odds with scientific usage. Phrases like 'non-physical matter', 'astral plane' and 'collapsing wave function' may be evocative metaphors, but are hard to interpret in a scientific context. The trouble is that mainstream scientists, taking reasonable offence at an ill-formulated model, tend to ignore the underlying core observation which prompted it. And yet, the basic data contained in these observations could have exciting implications for science, if the data are reliable.

So, is any of it reliable? Yes, a suprising amount. In the first place, many people do not realise that there have been numerous repeatable laboratory experiments demonstrating anomalous effects. These experiments have been replicated hundreds of times by scores of reputable university research departments across the world. If you are interested in finding out more, there is no better introduction to the findings of experimental parapsychology than Dean Radin's 'The Conscious Universe'. A good web-based resource is the Parapsychology FAQ. For people interested in details of current work, there are a number of journals specialising in aspects of the field: The Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), The Journal of the Parapsychological Association (PA) and the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR), to name but a few.

Now, the experimental laboratory work is very exciting, but some of the most intruiging data comes from the world of 'spontaneous cases'. These are the sort of things that happen outside of the laboratory, and are harder to control or repeat. As such, many scientific investigators sympathetic to the field steer clear of these phenomena, because they aren't amenable to normal scientific methods. However, there have still been many competent researchers who have put a great deal of effort into investigating, collating and analysing reports of odd occurrences of all sorts. And the patterns that emerge have to suggest either world-wide conspiracy on a mind-boggling scale, or more likely that there are things in nature that we haven't figured out yet. There are many who feel that since our entire legal system rests on witness testimony, it is perverse to disregard testimony of multiple, impeccable witnesses when the data they report correlates so well with other, similarly attested data. See Mary Rose Barrington's excellent article What is Proof? Good overviews of the field are available in Louisa Rhine's "The Invisible Picture" and Stephen Braude's "The Limits of Influence".

So, having reached the conviction that there are things happening which science can't explain yet, the next question is: where can we go from here? The scientific method has always been, in essence, to find data that is inexplicable, and then adjust the theory until the data can be explained. We at C-FAR feel that if we can extract the model-neutral essence out of parapsycological phenomena, it will be easier for scientists to make use of it in refining current models.

There is another stumbling block, though. Current scientific models are essentially predictive (and very good at making predictions, too). But they aren't so good at telling us what is really happening. We use concepts like space, energy, matter and time very effectively, without really understanding what they are. This is partly why non-scientists interested in the paranormal can misuse them the way that they do. In a way, the paranormal field is very good at pointing a finger at the concepts orthodox science hasn't tied down quite firmly enough. C-FAR's researchers feel that this can be used to good effect.

So we propose a two pronged attack: clarify our fundamental concepts, and catalogue the core data that we need to be able to explain. Once we have done that, we will have the right raw materials to feed the scientific method. Actually it has to be a three pronged attack, because we must never lose sight of what we are really trying to do, and that is to answer the most fundamental questions about who we are, how the world works, and what our place in it is. This is a frighteningly ambitious goal, but then again, this is what science is ultimately about. If C-FAR can help to bring people together to tackle these questions, then we will be a big step closer to achieving that goal.