sackett wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 5:59pm:


Someone already commented on this, but I think it is an important point.

There is no possible way for you to know that the armored car drivers were lying if they said they hadn’t thought about stealing the money.  You guessed that they were lying, and you equate that with knowing.  You were almost certainly right some of the time, and almost certainly wrong some of the time.

How is that any different from the polygraph process?  You ask questions and then you make a judgment based on what you think.  You are almost certainly right some of the time, and almost certainly wrong some of the time.

Why do you believe the polygraph is any more or less scientific and/or accurate than a simple interview followed by a guess?  You could also conduct an interview and flip a coin afterwards.  You would be right some of the time and wrong some of the time, and it would be only slightly less reliable than taking a guess based on the examiner's assumptions.  Depending on the examiner, I imagine it could be even more reliable.

How many polygraph examiners make similar assumptions during pre-employment tests?  How many times do their assumptions screw over an applicant who is answering all the questions honestly?

Of the two people involved in any polygraph examination, the only one who truly knows if the answers given are truthful or not is the examinee.  The examiner can only make guesses.

It is discouraging to see how such guesses are not even recognized as such, but are rather mistaken for science.

sackett wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 1:52am:


The polygraph is not purported to be a device which makes assumptions about a person's veracity based on human nature.  It is purported to detect deception via scientifically sound methodology.

If the examiner is making assumptions based on their belief that every armored car guard has thought about committing armed robbery, that can hardly be considered science.  It's simply a guess based on an assumption, which is going to wrong at least some of the time.

If you as the examiner are taking guesses what is the difference between a polygraph exam and an simple interview?  At the end of an interview I can make an educated guess as to the veracity of the subject, and I will be correct some of the time and incorrect some of the time.  You seem to be doing the exact same thing with the polygraph, but are calling it science and claiming an accuracy rate in the high nineties.

sackett wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 1:52am:


What is simple to understand, is Sackett's lying.  In this thread, he said?

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1203963165/15


Polygraph does not detect lies, period! No (informed) examiner, in a technical discussion of how polygraph works would say so.  Now, if after the examination, your examiner says "you're lying", it is said for the reason of simplicity and steamlining the conversation, NOT as a technical discussion of the results! The technical discussion of how it works should have already been engaged in during the pre-test interview.  I will assume you received that as well.

Sergeant1107 wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 2:00am:



Sarge! As for Sackett..... There are none so blind than those who will not see.
Here is a guy that makes a living using a machine that is supposed to detect deception (and all the other names for lying that he lists) yet even in this thread he admits ....IT DOESN'T DETECT LIES!! 
However if you fail a polygraph for what ever reason you are deemed .............A LYER. 
But Sackett and his cronies will come back here day after day to defend the use of this technology and their method of paying their bills!!

sackett wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 5:59pm:


So let me get this straight Mr. Sacket.  When you asked armored car drivers if they've ever thought about stealing money and they answered "no", then you knew they were lying.  Why bother using the polygraph machine then?  I guess human beings are better judges than machines.  The Doctor.

notguilty1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 9:10pm:


First off, it's LIAR, not lyer?!   

Yeah, sure, it's all about paying my bills.. 

Are you that that shallow or just ignorant...?

Sackett

sackett wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 2:28am:


I find these statements interesting.  Sackett seems to be saying that one major reason the polygraph isn't widely accepted by scientists is that it doesn't neatly fall into any one, single, narrowly defined scientific discipline.  Perhaps one would need to be an expert in a number of scientific fields--perhaps all of them that relate in any way to the polygraph--in order to render a reasonable scientific statement about it.   

But Sackett implies that even that is not good enough in another post:

sackett wrote on May 6^th, 2008 at 1:24am:


So, not only would one need to be qualified in a large number of scientific fields, one would also need to be an artist as well.  Only then could one (perhaps) be qualified to express a view on the accuracy of the polygraph.

In my view, this is simply special pleading to disqualify virtually everyone who says anything negative about the accuracy of the polygraph.  The only people they want saying anything about the accuracy of the polygraph are other polygraphers.  That's sort of like saying scientists can't say anything about the accuracy of psychic predictions because scientists are not psychics.  Or that science cannot comment on the validity of faith healing because scientists aren't faith healers.  It'd be like Uri Geller telling scientists that they had no basis for saying he wasn't bending spoons with his mind because those scientists couldn't bend spoons wit their minds.

Please, science is not so limited a procedure that it is helpless in the face of unusual claims, and the claims of polygraphers (we can detect deception with such-and-such percent accuracy) are not particularly complicated or difficult to understand.  In any event, the National Academy of Sciences includes members from every scientific discipline and members are the cream of the crop, the elite of American scientists.

Like others who dislike scientific findings vis-a-vis their favorite hobby horse (creationists, UFO folks, new agers, and the like), polygraphers are left positing that scientists are either dunces, incapable of doing legitimate research on their topic, or are involved in a conspiracy to cover up accurate information.  The only people, they think, able to express an opinion on the accuracy of the polygraph are those whose opinion is that it is sufficiently accurate.  How scientific.  Or Artistic?

Lethe,

once again, circular logic seems ineviatable...

You wrote: "Perhaps one would need to be an expert in a number of scientific fields--perhaps all of them that relate in any way to the polygraph--in order to render a reasonable scientific statement about it.  

But Sackett implies that even that is not good enough in another post:

sackett wrote on May 5th, 2008, 9:24pm:
Polygraph is a combination of sciences and arts that when applied together, work.  To break it down by science or art, it can not necessarily be explained satisfactorily to those thinking in a singular methodology or nature. 

So, not only would one need to be qualified in a large number of scientific fields, one would also need to be an artist as well.  Only then could one (perhaps) be qualified to express a view on the accuracy of the polygraph."

My point was simplistic even by my standards.  Sorry you (again) missed it!

Evaluation of the polygraph process by one specific scientific field will not satisfactorily explain all that polygraph is.  I never suggested to understand polygraph one needed to be an expert in ALL scientific fields (as you have wrongly expanded), but simply, that scientists tend to orient themselves to what they know and can prove within their own scientific field, rather than what works (like polygraph) when it contains numerous disciplines.

Sackett