trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Precognition is supported by scientific evidence.

the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
Recorded sources
0 sources for · 3 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that Precognition is supported by scientific evidence?

No. A reference encyclopedia states that no experimental evidence for precognition has been accepted as rigorous scientific proof and that precognition is widely considered pseudoscience. A psychology methods textbook likewise notes that precognition claims are not supported by any prior compelling scientific evidence.

Verdict: REFUTED · 0 sources for, 3 against · Last checked

The private library was unavailable for some searches in this check. Missing library results are not evidence against the claim.

Evidence against · 3
Precognition
Get citation
Precognition. (n.d.). en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition

See more details
More against · 2
Why a meta-analysis of 90 precognition studies does not provide convincing evidence of a true effect
2015
Get citation
Lakens, D. (2015). Why a meta-analysis of 90 precognition studies does not provide convincing evidence of a true effect. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.59350/2vbvw-bxd89

Experimentology
2025
Get citation
Frank, M. C., Braginsky, M., Cachia, J., Coles, N. A., & Hardwicke, T. E. (2025). Experimentology. play.google.com. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=db8lEQAAQBAJ&source=gbs_api

Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work