Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab | Wikipedia audio article
Channel: wikipedia tts
Date: 2019-07-06

This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab


00:00:53 Parapsychological experiments with random event generators



Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago.

Learning by listening is a great way to:
- increases imagination and understanding
- improves your listening skills
- improves your own spoken accent
- learn while on the move
- reduce eye strain

Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to listen a lot, you could try using a bone conduction headphone, or a standard speaker instead of an earphone.

Listen on Google Assistant through Extra Audio:
https://assistant.google.com/services/invoke/uid/0000001a130b3f91
Other Wikipedia audio articles at:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wikipedia+tts
Upload your own Wikipedia articles through:
https://github.com/nodef/wikipedia-tts
Speaking Rate: 0.9692597937130005
Voice name: en-GB-Wavenet-D


"I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think."
- Socrates


SUMMARY
=======
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) was a research program at Princeton University that studied parapsychology. Established in 1979 by then Dean of Engineering Robert G. Jahn, PEAR closed in February 2007, being incorporated into the "International Consciousness Research Laboratories" (ICRL). The program was controversial.PEAR's primary purpose was to engage in parapsychological exercises on topics such as psychokinesis (PK) and remote viewing.  The program had a strained relationship with Princeton and was considered an embarrassment to the university. PEAR's activities have been criticized for lack of scientific rigor, poor methodology, and misuse of statistics, and have been characterized as pseudoscience.