Which brings up an interesting point: anyone who has a background in math/science/engineering is going to be skeptical of unsupported claims about the efficacy of the polygraph. My guess is that the "Dr." who made a post is a Ph.D. - in a non-science related area, like psychology, education, and so on. The EdD's, "doctor" of education, is the lowest, I mean the absolute lowest, form of any doctorate, and they tend to overuse the "Dr." title. But I digress.

Any "Dr." who makes claims about how accurate or reliable some instrument is surely knows those claims are going to be challenged, and that is part of the scientific method. Claims without supporting evidence are BS, and that is a fact.