Quote: John Hocking Ph.D in his review of 'A Tremor In The Blood'
Ref:
www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/ The word science has been associated with all sorts of hogwash and chicanery, none more harmful than the myth that there is a machine that will reliably detect lying. I know of no better example of [pseudo] science than the continued use of the polygraph.
As I write in my book, "Communication Research" (2003; p 411; Allyn & Bacon), "[Lykken's] book should receive a Pulitzer prize. It is must reading for anyone who has an association with lie detectors or polygraphs ...or for anyone who would like to go on an intellectual joy ride while swooping to an understanding of how an entire society can be duped by pseudo "science." Lyken reviews virtually all known research about lie detection with brilliant scientific rigor. He concludes [as does the National Academy of Sciences in a recently published independent report] that there exists no credible empirical evidence"... for the test's validity (Hocking et. al.; 2003; p 411; Allyn & Bacon).
I challenge anyone to read Lykken's review of polygraph research and disagree with his conclusion that "it is madness for courts or federal police or security agencies to rely on polygraph results" or that the mythology surrounding the test is a deeply entrenched mythology similar to children believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny (p 279 - Lyyken).
Lykken's book is written with the rigor and documentation of a first rate college text, yet is fascinating and readable. It is an important work, one of the best and most valuable books I have read in 30 years of teaching social research methodologoly at the university level. "
Whenever anti-poly folk correctly state that polygraph is snake oil - smoke and mirrors, they are challenged to produce 'science' and 'literature' to back up their statements. They are sarcastically queried as to their educational levels, career status, and urged to read the 'literature, the science, the research' ad nauseum.
When they do quote science and critique from academics - usually more highly qualified and educated (in the specific fields of psychology and criminology) than the pro polygraph researchers, then they are asked why do they not present any original thought........!?
Every polygraph examiner latches onto thoughts, facts and pseudo-science handed down from the generations of examiner-instructors that went before.
As NAS and other august bodies have oft reported, there is nothing new, no new scientific developments in polygraphy that present any hope of it ever becoming a real science. Further, academics and scientists doubt in unison, that there exist any advancements that would produce greater reliability in polygraphy.
Examiners selectively choose to parrot only that 'research' ( read biased) that is pro polygraph. They selectively choose to ignore the overwhelming mass of research and literature that debunks polygraph as a pseudo-science and incapable of reliable DOD examination.
Pages: 1
What good are polys? (Read 3384 times)
