Kalex wrote on Aug 1
st, 2007 at 2:58pm:
Good Day Sgt and Mr Moderator,
In fact, Polygraphy IS based on science.
In fact, it isn't.
Quote:New fact: It is not an exact nor a precise science - and that's where all the problems begin.
Not only is polygraphy "not an exact nor a precise science":
it is not a science at all. Quote:The polygraph records scientific data. No argument about that.
No argument about that. But this doesn't provide a scientific basis for polygraphy. A Roman
haruspex might have made detailed and accurate observations of sheep entrails. A medieval
astrologer might have dutifully noted the movements of the stars and planets across the heavens. A 19th century
phrenologist might have used calipers to take precise measurements of a subject's cranium. To again quote Dr. Alan Zelicoff (in his remarks before the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph), "From a medical and scientific standpoint, it is not sufficient to measure well that which should not be measured in the first place."
Quote:However, what the DOD industry does with that data is unscientific.
Precisely.
Quote:Using polygraph data as a means to decide whether a person is truthful or not is not science. Using a polygraph in that endeavour is a learned skill.
The polygraph is little more than an interrogational prop. Polygraphers do not and cannot detect deception. As Dr. Drew Richardson
has observed, polygraphers who administer lie tests are involved in the detection of deception in the same way that a person who jumps from a tall building is involved in flying.
Quote:An educated, intelligent examiner possessed of good investigative skills can use the polygraph as a prop to elicit confessions. That doesn't always work and when it doesn't then the subject should be given all benefit of doubt and be called NDI.
Better yet, let's forgo the delusion that the polygraph can detect deception and say that absent a corroborated confession, a polygraphers are not qualified to pass judgment on a person's truthfulness. The person who passes may be deceptive. The person who fails may be truthful. CQT polygraphy cannot reliably differentiate between liars and truth-tellers.
Quote:Maybe INC's & NDI's should both be renamed as NAM's (No Admissions Made)
If a call of DI is made, it should be accompanied by an Admission, otherwise its NAM.
and DI can be renamed DIAM (Deception Indicated & Admission Made)
Since the charts are not to be relied upon why should only those who "fail" receive post-test interrogations? The bottom line is that
polygraphy is pseudoscience. It's high time that the deluded notion that reliable inferences regarding matters of truth versus deception can be drawn from an examination of polygraph charts were abandoned.