George,

This thread was started because of a direct statement that you had made about polygraph.  You said, "CQT polygraphy has not been shown by peer-reviewed scientific research to differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels of accuracy under field conditions. Moreover, since CQT polygraph lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity."

You have in no way supported this assumption.  Lykken or any other opponent of CQT polygraph has not proven your assumption.  There is no current statistical data in field or laboratory peer-reviewed research studies that purports polygraph is not better then chance accuracy at differentiating between truth and deception.  I have supported this by illustrating some current and past peer-reviewed studies all with higher then chance validity rates and the more current with validity rates equal to or better then some of the accepted scientific disciplines.

You and those you reference write of the lack of scientific control and standardization yet there is no support for these assumptions.  They are simply unsupported statements.  Lykken does have the afforded luxury of being renowned in his field. Thus his assertions are reverend by the followers of his ideology(GKT).  His arguments only aid in the slowing of general acceptance and do nothing to disprove polygraph as a scientifically valid discipline.

You do not have the afforded luxuries that Lykken does.  Your formal education is not in a related or even semi-related field.  For you to make unsupported statements with the lack of credential or peer-reviewed research to support these is nothing more then a lay assumption or repeat of Lykken's meaningless rhetoric.

I have shown examples of scientific control, standardization, and validity.

I have reviewed my comparisons with scientists of other accepted disciplines and they believe my explanations are sound scientifically and support my assertions.

I again ask you:

1) What about the current peer-reviewed field researches show polygraph to be no better then chance accuracy and what is the current accuracy rate?

2) What control does polygraph lack?

3) What standardization does polygraph lack?

If you cannot prove your assertion, then please retract it and state that which you can support with hard evidence.

beech trees,

This debate is in reference to an assertion made by George.  He has in the past set the rules for rational discourse and placed the burden of proof on he who makes the assertion.  Thus, the burden of proof is his.  

This is not a scientific review of polygraph for official acceptance.  If that were the case, I would agree with you that the presenter of evidence of a purposed science for acceptance would have the burden to prove it to be true.  There are very few on this site who have the credentials to carry this type of formal debate out and it would have to be done in proper forum for acceptance.