Invalid science | Wikipedia audio article
Channel: wikipedia tts
Date: 2019-06-06

This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invalid_science


00:00:48 1 Incidence
00:02:50 1.1 Biological sciences
00:03:38 1.2 Paleontology
00:04:52 1.3 Major retractions
00:06:27 1.4 Priming
00:07:23 2 Potential causes
00:07:33 2.1 Competition
00:08:38 2.2 Publication bias
00:09:43 2.3 Peer review
00:11:15 2.4 Statistics
00:11:25 2.4.1 Type I and type II errors
00:12:16 2.4.2 Statistical power
00:16:13 2.4.3 Statistical significance
00:17:35 2.5 Minimum threshold publishers
00:18:11 2.6 Unpublished research
00:19:09 2.7 Fraud
00:19:46 2.8 Lack of access to data and software
00:21:10 3 Reform
00:21:20 3.1 Statistics training
00:21:46 3.2 Protocol registration
00:22:22 3.3 Post-publication review
00:22:54 3.4 Replication
00:25:54 4 See also



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: 0.7221639953839305
Voice name: en-US-Wavenet-B


"I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think."
- Socrates


SUMMARY
=======
Invalid science consists of scientific claims based on experiments that cannot be reproduced or that are contradicted by experiments that can be reproduced. Recent analyses indicate that the proportion of invalid claims in the scientific literature is steadily increasing. The number of retractions has grown tenfold over the past decade, but they still make up approximately 0.2% of the 1.4m papers published annually in scholarly journals.The U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), investigates scientific misconduct.