Quote:


George, I guess what I have an issue with is your phraseology.  Since when does the lack on inclusion in a book, the use of one procedure more frequently than another, or a practioner defending a particular testing technique, mean the procedure is "thoroughly discredited?"  I have not seen a  single article in ANY polygraph journel indicating the R&I should NOT be used.  Not one single word against its utilization, yet you have repeated claimed it is "thoroughly discredited."

Heck, even mammograms, which have had several articles come out recently seriously questioning its utility in early detection of breast cancer, would not be described as "thoroughly discredited."  Please watch how fast you banter particular words around.  Some might describe your choice of words as "spin."

This leads me to another point I would like to comment on.  In a recent string between you and Polycop, in which he desribed the academic association between DoDPI and Argosy University, you described Argosy as a "for profit outfit."  I have no doubt you chose those words carefully for their full spin effect..

First of all, any private university I have ever heard of is, "for profit."  If I am wrong about this, perhaps you would like to provide me with a list of "Not for profit" private universities?

Next, the term, "outfit," immediately brings to mind a business concern instead of an academic institution.  Is the University of Alabama or Nova University, an "outfit?"

Of course I expect anti-polygraph spin on any site called, "anti-polygraph.org.  It is that sometimes it is so obvious as to need pointing out...

Regards...

PDD-Fed

Quote:


Scared?

OK, let me settle this.

First of all, I know of no peer reviewed study substantiating the validity of R&I testing.  However, if I am not mistaken, the Daubert decision does not require that research supporting any particular forensic procedure have been "peer reviewed."

Secondly, on the subject of peer review, when a person submits a paper to (for example) The Journel of the American Psychological Association, it is "peer reviewed" by three members of that esteemed field of scientific endevour.  This is appropriate, since only experts in that field should judge the quality of any submission.  Yet, if three graduate degree holding members of the American Polygraph Association were to "peer review" a paper submitted for publication in its journel, and they were to accept that paper, that work would be immediately dismissed by the people who post to this site...

Am I wrong in this assumption?

PDD-Fed

PDD-Fed,

You write:

Quote:


First of all--thank you very much for your honesty.  I am glad this matter has finally been laid to rest.  With regard to Daubert considerations, yes, peer-reviewed publication is a component.  These components (evaluated areas) are generally considered to be the following:

Tested and proven
Peer reviewed and published
Accurate, and
Accepted in the scientific community

The RI format would fail on all counts, and I would be extremely surprised to ever find it passing muster via Daubert.  If it did it would most certainly be a perversion of the present system…

With regard to your question, no, Polygraph is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  It is a trade publication of a trade organization, the American Polygraph Association.  Even if it were a peer-reviewed scientific journal it would not be the correct one to submit to.  Remember you are PDD-Fed, yes? --The appropriate one would be one of many in the area of psychophysiology.  If your theoretical three members of APA with suitable backgrounds in psychophysiology were to publish in the appropriate journals, then any evidence of validity offered would be worthy of consideration at that point.

PDD-Fed,

With regard to what would be an acceptable peer-reviewed scientific journal in the area of psychophysiology, I believe that would be determined by a consensus of scientists in that area (psychophysiology).  With regard to the hypothetical you pose regarding the trade journal Polygraph, all I can offer is the analogy if apples were oranges and pigs could fly....

Management is not what Polygraph lacks (no opinion from this quarter on that subject) but scientific credibility within the relevant scientific community (psychophysiology).  And if you recall from the previous discussion of Daubert, that is an important consideration.  In fact, largely because the CQT has little acceptance in the scientific community (even though it, as opposed to the RI,  has been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature), it is generally excluded from trial court testimony via Daubert hearings.

Quote:


In general, "ad hominem" refers to the use of personal attacks to discredit in lieu of logical argumentation.  Since George has already made a logical case and used it to conclude that you are being intellectually dishonest, I don't believe his statement meets the definition.

Quote:


No one says you have to answer anything, Dr. Barland.  Of course, others are completely free to draw conclusions regarding your reasons for such refusals, as well as the implications for your position in any debate.  Welcome to internet discussions

As for your "other priorities", my own inference, based upon your frequent posts, is that it is not lack of time which drives your non-answers.

Peace, indeed,
Skeptic

Gordon,

I have to say that I find it strange, and discordant, that on the one hand you value civilized discourse (as do I, and thanks for recognizing that, though I didn't find George's comments to you vituperative or non-substantive), yet on the other, you advocate a technique that in practice is often characterized by the polygraph examiner's abuse, distortion of the subject's words, arrogance, deception, crassness, vitriol, intimidation, and puffery.   

If it were just a pure diagnostic tool, that would be one thing, but the polygraph is used as a cudgel.  How do you reconcile this?

Mark,

I'm not sure what you are referring to: the CQT, the RI, or polygraph in general.   

Peace,

Gordon