LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Nov 20
th, 2006 at 11:48pm:
Have you ever been abducted by aliens or seen someone abducted by aliens, George?
No.
Quote:Have you ever been the subject of faith healing or seen someone you knew personally was sick or injured healed by faith?
No.
Quote:If not, then how can you ridicule the possibilities?
I am merely pointing out that experiential claims for such purported phenomena as
alien abduction and
faith healing are uncorroborated by independent evidence, much like polygraphers' claims that they can detect polygraph countermeasures.
Just as
Russell's teapot and the
Flying Spaghetti Monster might be real phenomena, so too might alien abductions, faith healing, and polygraph countermeasure detection. But independently corroborable evidence is lacking for all.
Quote:Why would anyone believe you when you have no experience with either? Same thing with the polygraph. You don't use it.
The fact that I don't use polygraphs is immaterial to my assertion that there is no proof that polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures. If the polygraph community wants the public to believe that it can detect countermeasures, then the onus is upon it to prove that claim, and not on those who ask for proof to disprove it.
Quote:You failed it, yes, and I hope that your claims to have undeservedly failed it are true.
They are.
Quote:If so, then you are one of the tiny minority, and deserving of the apology you will probably never receive.
Given what is know about the unreliability of polygraphy, especially when used in a screening context, and what is known about the FBI's polygraph failure rate, which suddenly rose, as if by magic, from about 20% in the 1990s to about 50% post-9/11, the "tiny minority" of which you speak is likely considerably larger than you feel comfortable believing.
Quote:But you haven't used it, so all you have are questionable and controversial studies that most experts would tell you can not be accurately applied to real-world field conditions. Some of those studies are overly critical of the polygraph, and some are overly supportive of the polygraph.
Specifically what studies are overly critical of the polygraph? In what way?
Quote:If I were in your position, perhaps I would do what you do by running this website. However, I'm not in your position, and you aren't in mine. I use the polygraph all the time, and so I know from experience that it works almost all of the time. I can't convince you of that, but that's ok with me, just as it's probably ok with you that you can't convince me of some of your arguments either. Regards.
You certainly can't convince me that the polygraph "works almost all the time" without more evidence than the assertion that you know this from experience.