A good discussion is https://gwern.net/doc/psychiatry/1991-castle.pdf https://gwern.net/doc/psychiatry/1991-castle.pdf , which highlights the curious criticism

A good discussion is https://gwern.net/doc/psychiatry/1991-castle.pdf https://gwern.net/doc/psychiatry/1991-castle.pdf , which highlights the curious criticism of https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/parapsychology/1950-sabine.pdf https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/parapsychology/1950-sabine.... which argues that it wasn't retrocognition but precognition of their future research on their vision - so the archive research 'proved' their vision because the vision was of that archive research in the first place! Thus, you could never prove retrocognition because it could just be precognition of the proof. I found the epistemological paradoxes here amusing enough to write some more about: https://gwern.net/retrocognition https://gwern.net/retrocognition (My contribution here is to suggest that Sabine doesn't go far enough: precognition of verification is also self-refuting, because if it's possible, why haven't we already precognitively copied the proof of precognition into the present?)