As you probably already know, a false syllogism ("Sillygism") draws the wrong conclusion from two premises.  For example:

Premise 1:  People who have just run a marathon sweat profusely.
Premise 2:  You are sweating profusely.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you have just run a marathon.

Not a valid conclusion.  Maybe you just stepped out of a sauna, worked in the yard on a hot day...etc.

The polygraph is based partially on a false Sillygism, which goes something like this:

P1:  People often react nervously when they purposely lie, or are purposely deceptive, when answering relevant questions.
P2:  You are reacting nervously when answering relevant questions.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you must be lying.


Again, not a valid conclusion:  Some people can lie their asses off without getting the least bit nervous   Many truthful people will react nervously by the mere insinuation that they are lying.

Logic 101

TC

T.M. Cullen wrote on May 15^th, 2008 at 9:04pm:


Or perhaps Cullen,

Premise 1:  People who talk in circles are ignorant and can not learn.
Premise 2:  Your commentary linguistics pattern is circular in nature.
Conclusion:  You're an idiot!

Circular Logic 101

Read and learn...

Sackett

P.S.  No home run "n.p.c." wrong field... figures though!

sackett wrote on May 15^th, 2008 at 10:05pm:




Wow I gave him way too much credit!! See I knew he would come back with some ingnorant post!!!!!!

"notguilty1"

give me no credit.  You guys make it easy and taking advantage of the mentally impaired is nothing to be proud of...and, I am not proud!

Successful apparently, but not proud!  

Sackett 

You point out an "intelligent" argument and I'll join in.  

I didn't start the name calling, false analogies, disinformative and improper application of so-called "logic." I'm just a sucker to a neandertholic and gutteral desire to defend myself.


Sackett

Cullen,

no nerves struck here, just a desire to point out ignorance and misapplied information and disinformative diatribe. For example, 

P1:  To tell a joke, one thinks themself witty.
P2:  When no-one laughs, gives oneself pity
Conclusion:  Must be a pity party participant who gets laughed at by all.

Sad, sad, sad,


Sackett

P.S.  It doesn't surprise me you would have to resort to plagerism...

Yes, Sackett, but still, no one has given me a satisfactory answer to my very legitimate question.

I had two polygraphs over the same criminal charge.  There was NO objective evidence brought into the trial.  No physical evidence and no eyewitness identification.  Both polygraph exams were given by state licensed and vetted examiners, one private, the other from the state police.

I passed the private polygraph and failed the police polygraph.

If the polygraph is such an effective determinant of Truth and is supposedly reliable enough to do that, how does your profession explain away the dichotomy?

And please, do not hand me that crap about the machines being off or the quality of the examiners...just assume that all things were equal because as far as I could tell, other thna the private examiner having 27 years more exepreince than the police examiner, I found nothing different about the exams themselves to indicate that one was better than the other.

Just try to explain it to me in your best professional fashion, ok?

Take it easy...

Have a nice day.

TheKaisho,

your indignation is understandable.  But as your question presents itself my response is this.  With ignorance and indifference to the multitude of variables possible (as you insisted), there should not be a difference in the results of two perfectly equal and balanced tests.   

Bias, as suggested by cat is certainly a possibility, but there are hundreds of others; however, it is a variable that you have insisted I ignore.  For that reason, I nor anyone (with any true knowledge of polygraph) would be able to explain the dichotomy. 


Sackett