I note that, in an AP report on the subject, Prof. Frank Horvath desperately tried to change the subject with the following quote:
"I would have to ask what tool they have in mind to replace polygraph screening,'' Horvath said. ``If we wanted to catch a spy or an applicant bent on spying, what would we do? What technique would we use to do that? There is no alternative right now to polygraph testing, and that's why it is used in spite of its shortcomings.''
(
U.S. Advised Against Polygraphs--AP)
One might as well justify Tarot card readings for applicant screening on the grounds that "we have nothing better". What a specious thing to say, especially since the report specifically recommended alternatives to continued polygraph screening. Horvath obviously hasn't even read that on which he's commenting.
It's a bad day for polygraph proponents.
I also noticed the AP story got several facts wrong, including the statements:
"Polygraphs measure heartbeat, blood pressure and other factors that are known to change when people are under stress, as they are when they lie."
(Certainly, this may happen, but people don't necessarily react with stress when they lie, nor do they fail to do so when they don't.)
"Most uses involve examining individuals about a specific crime, and in those cases the machines can tell the difference between lies and truth 'at rates well above chance, though well below perfection,'' the panel concluded."
(The vast majority of polygraphs given in this country are for security screening purposes, not specific-issue testing.)
At least they did mention that no spy has ever been caught by the polygraph.
Skeptic