TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Nov 8^th, 2004 at 9:01pm:


I don't doubt that computerized scoring algorithms can remove an element of subjectivity from polygraph chart scoring. But the problem remains that the underlying procedure (CQT polygraphy) lacks scientific underpinnings.

But here is what the National Academy of Sciences concluded regarding computerized scoring algorithms:

"There has yet to be a proper independent evaluation of computer scoring algorithms on a suitably selected set of cases, for either specific incidents or security screening, which would allow one to accurately assess the validity and accuracy of these algorithms."

You also ask:

Quote:


In the near term, I think we may well see more use of computerized scoring algorithms as the polygraph community struggles to maintain its waning ability to hoodwink the public. But the ultimate destination of polygraphy is atop the trash heap of bad ideas (alongside other pseudosciences such as phrenology and graphology).

Quote:


No, again because of the underlying procedure's lack of scientific underpinnings. If computerized astrological charts concur in their findings, does that mean they are statistically significant?