Kuhnexus Definitions

Kuhnexus will include phenomena

that have to be explained if we are to have a sound understanding of the nature of reality, and
for which there is a reasonable level of evidence, and
that confound expectations based on the mainstream scientific paradigm.

This definition covers a broader range of anomalies than is usually included in psychical research (e.g. homeopathy, UFOs, placebo effect). However, it excludes puzzles that are likely to be solvable within the parameters of the orthodox framework (e.g. whether ulcers can be caused by bacteria).

What is a case?

In the context of the project, we define a Case as a historical narrative that rests on records that authenticate it to some degree, and that provides evidence and context for either:

a single event that is anomalous in the sense defined above (e.g. an apport or a clairvoyant vision); or
a synergistic grouping of events, at least one of which is anomalous in the sense defined above. The events are interlinked in some way, e.g.
- their combined effect or interrelatedness constitutes an additional anomaly requiring explanation beyond the explanations for the individual events (e.g. synchronicity); or
- their implication in combination is revealing about the phenomena under study in a way that is not evident when the constituent events are considered in isolation (e.g. cross-correspondences); or
- they include phenomena that mainly or only occur with or after other specific phenomena (e.g. poltergeist phenomena).

What makes a case important?

Each case will eventually be scored based on the following criteria:

Acquired Credibility: how credible is the evidence for this specific case.
- Researcher credibility: this score indicates the extent to which we have grounds to accept the competence and integrity of the researcher (e.g. proven skills, integrity, careful observation, experience, judgement)
- Witness credibility: an assessment of the good faith, credibility and reliability of the percipient or principal witness. (score according to the witness with the highest credibility in terms of e.g. accurate reporting, education, experience, observational skills, lack of vested interest in a positive outcome, isolation from other case histories, ignorance of reinforcing/verifying facts)
- Corroboration: an indicator of the number and quality of other, independent witnesses in the case
- Depth of evidence: the extent to which the case is backed up by 'good' research and documentation (e.g. detailed signed witness statements, publication in non-fringe literature, expert analyses, first-hand reports, reports made soon after the event)
- Veridicality: the extent to which information was produced that could be verified subsequently and could not have been previously known
- Remnants: the amount of physical material surviving that that reinforces the reports, e.g. photographs of an apparition, bent spoon, medical records of before and after healing event
- Consistency: the degree of agreement (in significant features) between the case and other highly regarded case reports in the same class (e.g. common tunnel of light in early NDE cases) or has significant historical precedents (e.g. psychomantium experiences correlate with classical "Oracles of the Dead" )
- Strength: a mark indicating the extent to which the case has (on balance) withstood attempts to debunk it. Full marks would be allocated to a case that is not obscure but has not attracted much criticism
Case Value: how telling is the case, does it have particularly significant implications
- Challenge Clarity: the extent to which the challenge to orthodoxy would be clear, i.e. not open to interpretation, if the case was established. (e.g. a levitating priest is clearly a challenge to orthodoxy, whereas a significant Ganzfeld experiment is open to interpretation re e.g. the use and interpretation of statistical methods)
- Challenge Level: the more fundamental the principle challenged, the higher the score
- Class Deviation: the extent to which the case displays characteristics that are inconsistent with tentative explanations for other cases in its class (e.g. map dowsing conflicts with the magnetic field hypotheses for water dowsing).
Inherent Credibility: how credible is the evidence for this category of case.
- Best cases: how credible are the best cases of this type. This is generated automatically from the maximum (or some percentile) overall score of the cases in the category. The overall scores are dependent on the category weightings and so will adjust if those weightings are changed.
- Correlation: the extent to which phenomena in the category correlate with an independent objective variable, e.g. Ganzfeld success correlates with local sidereal time, or precognition events correlates with low geomagnetism (this strengthens the case against hoaxing, misuse of statistics, etc)
- Repeatability: the extent to which factors are known that allow prediction of the occurrence with a reasonable certainty for a given set-up (e.g. experimental micro-PK), or the existence of induction programs that are reasonably successful at imparting an unexplained skill (e.g. dowsing)
- Size: a number, on a logarithmic scale, indicating roughly how many similar independent cases have been reported in the category (1: single numbers; 2: tens; 3: hundreds; 4: thousands; 5 tens of thousands etc)

These criteria for case importance will not be restrictive. Users of the database will be able to decide which criteria are important to them, and then extract the 'best' cases according to those criteria, while ignoring others.

In particular, users will be able to mix and match between 'value' and 'credibility' criteria, which is important as the most vital clues are not necessarily contained in the most commonly or best observed phenomena. Different types of searches will identify, for example, the most well established phenomena, the most challenging ones, the most amazing cases and the cases with most radical implications. It will also be possible to characterise the range of phenomena for which there is a reasonable amount of evidence, and the variability in the expression of those phenomena.