You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.
Anon, I am truly amazed at the fact the polygraph is still with us after all these years. The hypothesis that there are physiological responses exclusively indicative of deception receives just about as much respect from the scientific community as it did in the 1920s: nearly none.
Despite all the so-called improvements to the procedure such as the computerized polygraph, the whole house of cards still rests on the rickety table of the flawed assumption mentioned above. Without a valid theory behind it, the computerized polygraph amounts to nothing more than "garbage in, garbage out."
I recently read an interesting article on-line which discussed how nearly all purportedly scientific techniques are both validated and accepted by the scientific community within a couple of generations, or fall by the wayside. The author was incredulous at the fact that the polygraph is still with us despite the loathing of the scientific community for nearly 90 years.
Unfortunately, I have misplaced the link for this article. If anyone is aware of where it is located, feel free to post the link on this thread.
Posted by: anon Posted on: Mar 29th, 2001 at 5:05am
1923 In Frye v. The United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals rules against admitting polygraph evidence in court. Expert
FRYE v. UNITED STATES No. 3968
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia
293 F. 1013; 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 1712; 54 App. D.C. 46; 34 A.L.R. 145
Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well- recognized scientific principle or discovery,the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.
We think the systolic blood pressure deception test has not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made. --- The judgment is affirmed.