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 p>