Precognition is another part of ESP. Most cases of precognition come down to anecdotes that are not being scientifically tested. A majority of the time the event or experience that the person believes they had precognitive knowledge comes down to be a coincidence, brought upon them by chance and the law of truly large numbers. The law of truly large numbers is the explanation for many things that seem to have some unexplainable connection and are an odd coincidence. There is an extreme lack of scientific evidence to support precognition. Many examples are people who claimed to have known that they knew about major events such as 9/11, but there is no way for them to prove those claims. Many of the arguments brought up in support are arguments to ignorance, since most evidence in support of precognition is anecdotal there is no way to disprove it. This leaves precognition in an unfalsifiable state until rigorous scientific trials have been done to record data to either prove or disprove this facet of ESP. The issue with getting this objective scientific data is that it is hard to find a way to reliable and accurately test precognition. Generally, precognition had been tested with Forced-Choice Precognition Tasks. These tests were performed quite similarly to the later psychokinesis trials. However, in this case, rather than using their abilities to change the outcome of the computer’s choice, the participant will predict the choice that the computer will randomly make. The computer will have several stimuli to choose from and as soon as the participant makes their choice the computer will then randomly pick a stimulus. Many studies that attempted to prove the existence of precognition did not find any consistent results. In order to keep the idea of precognition alive, its advocates stated that the reason no scientific studies could record and consistent data proving precognitions reality is because it is a “random phenomenon”. With precognition being random, it leaves it in a completely unfalsifiable state by any sort of controlled scientific testing. No matter how much data can be collected that goes against the existence of precognition, this data will always be claimed to be inaccurate by precognitions proponents making any attempts to disprove it pointless. Due to precognitions elusive nature, there would need to be a way to test precognition which accounted for its random nature. The solution to this was to use Sequential Forced-Choice Precognition Tasks with five stimuli. Once the data is collected statistics must be used in order to separate the precognitive patterns from the random ones. This is known as accounting for Bayesian Inference. This is an alternative means of gathering data. Normally data is collected using frequentist statistics. This calculates how likely something is to happen through a long running experiment. This is why when experiments are done the same conditions are maintained to maintain a certain outcome. With Bayesian Statistics probabilities are applied in order to account for differences found in new data. However, for scientific experiments control and consistency are necessary to collect data is accurate. This ensures that if a certain experiment is repeated by someone else the data can be compared evenly leaving no room for error. Even with these changes made to how testing for precognition was done, this was still not enough to find supporting evidence of precognition. Parapsychologists will do everything in their power to ensure that null results in various experiments are not proof that the phenomenon does not exist. Richard Wiseman explores this issue in his epilogue in the book “Debating Psychic Experience: Human Potential or Human Illusion?”. He feels that time is running out for parapsychological research as after over a hundred years of research there is still no unequivocal proof of psi. For some reason parapsychology research has not been stopped by the endless >