PDD-Fed,

Although I should have mentioned the following in our discussion yesterday, since my good friend, Beech, raised the issue of peer-reviewed journals once again, I will take the liberty of revisiting the subject once more.

With regard to the trade publication, "Polygraph," a publication of the American Polygraph Association, I believe it will never reach the status of an accepted peer-reviewed periodical in the world of psychophysiology (under present circumstances) for two reasons.  I spoke of one yesterday--lack of scientific rigor, but the other is equally important--lack of independence.  As long as "Polygraph" has any connection to the APA, a trade organization for those foisting (ok, admittedly a bit heavy handed characterization, albeit accurate ) a business on the American public, it will never be deemed to have the requisite independence to be considered a reputable scientific journal.  As it now stands, such a representation would be tantamount to R.J. Reynolds tobacco company suggesting its employee newsletter should be considered part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the world of pulmonary physiology.

Quote:


I understand and appreciate your points.  However, if I am not mistaken, the APA (polygraph) organization has two publications.  One is indeed a "newsletter" and is named as such.  It carries things like adds for instrument manufacturers, help wanted ads, etc.  The other publication is an actual jounal, which addresses operational and legal issues, research methodology, actual research studies, etc.  It compares at least in its structure and format, to scientific journals such as the AAFS and JAMA journals.

In fact, I would argue that JAMA, the journal of that American Medical Association, is a trade publication, not much unlike the Journal of the APA.  It serves not only as an outlet for medical research, But as a "trade" publication (furthering the position of its members).  In fact, the medical community has long used JAMA as a mouthpiece for defending its position on many commercial and political issues.  How is that unlike the APA Journal?  What am I not understanding here?

Quote:


Now c'mon.  I didn't ask for insults...  I simply made the comparison that like JAMA, the APA journal presents relevant research as well as fowards the interests of the community it serves.  In fact, if you were to compare the two publicications, you would find that JAMA is far more commercial and political in content than the APA journal.

Chow...

PDD-Fed

Quote:


The above definition is essentially the one I already presented (please see Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies -- argumentum ad hominem).  In order to demonstrate an argument is "ad hominem", one must show that it is irrelevant to the point at hand.  Since your evasions and the reasons behind them are very much the point (indeed, you made them the point), your intellectual honesty is most certainly relevant to the discussion.

As for polemics, weren't you the one who ducked under the umbrella of "national security" and cried "ad hominem" (easily the most common term in internet debate after "Hitler" and "nazis") when your motives for such were reasonably questioned?  Are we now to accept your lack of argument as an argument?  At least for me, that simply won't fly -- I've seen "I know but can't tell you how" used in lieu of real argumentation too many times to give such smoke-and-mirror games any credence.

Logical and serious points have been raised regarding R/I efficacy and implications not only for national security but individual fairness and due process, as well.  Reasonable questions have been put to you that could be answered with no conceivable harm to national security.  Either respond in kind or you have lost this debate.

Skeptic