Over the years, I've heard of numerous experiments set up to determine the validity of psychic phenomena and precognition, and typically, the results are ambiguous. However, the end of most of the experiments performed is usually just a statistical analysis of the results. The results are usually based on how often someone correctly predicted something or how accurately they described something without seeing it.
But it occurred to me that this method of experimenting may not be the best way to determine the validity of psychic phenomena. It's unlikely that it's going to prove anything. What got me thinking about it is what Jeane Dixon said about her inaccurate predictions; she said it wasn't necessarily that the information she received was wrong but that she interpreted it wrong. I've heard other psychics make similar statements. Some skeptics may think that is just a cop-out, and maybe it is, but let's assume for a moment that it's not just a cop-out.
If a psychic receives information telepathically but interprets it wrong, then the statistical analysis isn't of much value if you are trying to determine if it's possible to receive information telepathically. Because an inaccurate interpretation of psychic information doesn't refute that they received the information telepathically. To put it into perspective, consider a worker misunderstanding verbal instructions given to them by their boss at work. The worker may perform the job wrong because of the misunderstanding, but that misunderstanding isn't proof that the boss didn't give the worker accurate verbal instructions.
So with that in mind, even if someone with psychic abilities was always wrong with predictions, that wouldn't necessarily mean that they weren't receiving psychic information telepathically; it would just mean they were horrible at interpreting that information. For that matter, the information itself may be wrong, but that doesn't mean the information wasn't transmitted telepathically.
So if the question is whether or not psychic phenomena really exists, then I don't think you're going to be able to prove it with statistics. If someone were 100% right all of the time, that might make for some pretty convincing evidence, but I doubt that a legit experiment on psychic phenomena would ever succeed at getting 100% accuracy.
So how could we test the validity of psychic phenomena? I really don't know. Perhaps energy readings could provide better results...sort of like how ghost hunters look for ghosts, except instead of looking for ghosts, the subject could be psychic activity with living persons. But I think even the results of an experiment like that would be ambiguous. Perhaps there just isn't a 'scientific' way to 'prove' psychic phenomena exists.