One of the deep problems in assessing whether or not something like Clairvoyance is real is that there is no way to know the difference between extreme luck and

One of the deep problems in assessing whether or not something like Clairvoyance is real is that there is no way to know the difference between extreme luck and the output of a truly new fundamental ability. It's especially difficult if the Ability is real, but the Practitioner is somewhat flawed in their practice. Suppose we want to test if someone can tell the future, and they really can tell the future, but are not super great at interpreting their inner precognitions. We ask for the predicted outcome of 5 future events, each of which only has two outcomes. The reach within their minds, and "see" the different outcomes, but its a little jumbled, and they only get 4 of the outcomes right. Contrast that with someone who has no real ability, but just guesses at the same event outcomes. There is a 1 in 32 chance that they will get the outcome of all 5 events correct. So if you were testing enough people, or simply knew enough people who thought they could predict the future, but really couldn't, you would find plenty of people who seemingly knew the future, but didn't. The reality of assessing such abilities is very difficult, even more so than I have demonstrated, but ultimately I don't find it meaningful to even speculate on the existence of such abilities without also a meaningful way to measure them.