Drew,

Although one may control for some given variants in a particular setting, there is always the chance of uncontrollable variants.   I will admit I am not a toxicologist.  My knowledge of this discipline is extremely limited in comparison to yours.  I am not arguing that toxicology is invalid nor is that the subject.  I did not use or list toxicology as a direct comparison of scientific validity.  My reference to toxicology was to show that even validated disciplines could have outside factors that cannot be controlled for in field settings and that those outside factors may produce an inconclusive and/or false result.  I compared questioned documents for scientific validity and I used documentation of the validity results of the 3T3 NRU PT for accuracy comparison.  This dialog was in direct response to what George wrote in his post prior to mine.


Quote:

2) Do you agree that because CQT polygraphy lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity? If not, why?…… Other uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) variables that may reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of a polygraph interrogation include the subject's level of knowledge about CQT polygraphy (that is, whether he/she understands that it's a fraud) and whether the subject has employed countermeasures.

In reading this I deducted George was referring to variant control.  George must prove, with substantiated evidence of comparable scientific disciplines, that polygraph is not scientifically valid.  It is his assertions and this discussion is based on those and the past rules of discourse he has used.

I wrote, “This exam/test checks for the ability of the test to work. If the subject has an autonomic response to the known lie, the test works. If the subject does not have an autonomic response to the known lie, the test does not work.”  I did not say that the purpose of the stim/acquaintance was to measure the ability of the ANS to work.  A positive control test simply takes a known sample of a suspected unknown and simultaneously tests it with the unknown.  

For example:


Quote:

From ‘The Methods of Attacking Scientific Evidence’ by Edward J. Imwinkelried, 1982, Pg. 421-422 12-5(B).  Positive Control Test. Control tests are vital in drug identification (14) and serological (15) testing.  Suppose that the analyst suspects that the unknown is marijuana.  At the same time that the analyst tests the unknown, she would subject marijuana to the identical test – the known is the control or reference sample. (16)  By simultaneously testing the unknown and known samples, the analyst can compare the test results side by side.  Drug identification experts almost unanimously agree that the use of controls is vital to the credibility of drug analysis evidence. (17) Experts on blood group typing also fell that controls are needed in blood, semen, and saliva analysis. (18) …… 14. Bradford, “Credibility of Drug Analysis Evidence,” Trial, May/June 1975, at 90. 15. Wraxall, “Forensic Serology,” in Scientific and Expert Evidence 897, 907 (2d ed. 1981). 16. Bradford, “Credibility of Drug Analysis Evidence,” Trial, May/June 1975, at 90. 17. Id. 18. Wraxall, “Forensic Serology,” in Scientific and Expert Evidence 897, 907 (2d ed. 1981).

You reference the ANS.  Although the ANS is regularly used to sustain life, the specific deceptive ANS response measured in a polygraph is not regularly used for continual life sustaining purposes.  I agree with you that there are other reasons that you have alluded to that define others’ explanations for the use and existence of the stim/acquaintance test/exam.  A stim/acquaintance test/exam is a Known Solution Peak of Tension Test.  Polygraph examiner training material reads as follows in reference to the stim/acquaintance, “Correlate outcome to the polygraph examination.”  Given my and the above supporting literature’s explanation of positive control test, do you agree or disagree that the stim/acquaintance test/exam is a positive control test?  


Quote:

From: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v1n2a2.html What Do We Mean by "Scientific?" Henry H. Bauer, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061 There exists no simple and satisfactory definition of "science." Such terms as "scientific" are used for rhetorical effect rather than with descriptive accuracy. The virtues associated with science — reliability, for instance — stem from the functioning of the scientific community.

When referring to scientific validity, one can reference many instances where a science was discredited by the majority of scientists, thus not accepted, and inversely proven to be true and accepted at a later date without addition and/or change to theory.  The reverse of this process has also happened.  So  “Scientific Validity” is in itself a highly subjective process directly dependent on the opinions of the current majority of scientists in the related discipline.  A scientific process can be accurate and its theory sound but with an absence of its general acceptance it may be considered invalid.  It is the test of scientific acceptability that defines whether a theory or practice is accepted.