Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
AntiPolygraph.org
Make a Donation

   

Important: We strongly recommend that you use the free Tor Browser Bundle when browsing AntiPolygraph.org. (Here's why.) For an alternative, system-wide implementation of Tor, try The Amnesiac Incognito Live System. For better anonymity, guest posting is enabled, and you may use a fake e-mail address (e.g., nobody@nowhere.com) when posting as a guest.

Be aware that polygraph operators also read the discussions on this message board. If you wish to remain anonymous, be careful not to post enough personal detail that you could be identified (for example, the exact date of your polygraph examination).

Try the chat room to communicate anonymously with other visitors presently online. (Choose a user name and leave the password field blank.)

  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 6
Reply Add Poll Send Topic Print
FALSE syllogism? (Read 15178 times)
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Hawaii
Gender: male
FALSE syllogism?
May 15th, 2008 at 4:04pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
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
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 15th, 2008 at 4:20pm by T.M. Cullen »  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #1 - May 15th, 2008 at 4:54pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
And, here comes the pitch!!! T takes a mighty swing and POW, the ball shoots off the bat like a heat seeking missle, straight for the scoreboard!!!

HOME RUN, game over.
Back to top
 

"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."  (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #2 - May 15th, 2008 at 5:05pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
T.M. Cullen wrote on May 15th, 2008 at 4:04pm:
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


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... Grin

Sackett

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

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box notguilty1
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 300
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #3 - May 15th, 2008 at 5:07pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
T.M. Cullen wrote on May 15th, 2008 at 4:04pm:
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


Hey TC

Well Put! I am sure as you know by now that the pro folks like Sackett will come back at you negating the obvious staing that your no expert and that they, are the only people that can accuratly evaluate thier very inaccurate machine.
And how your logic is way off.

However truth is truth ( Not polygraph established truth) and the non-science of this thing is evident ad obvious to all but the uninitiated as we all were at one point.
Wink

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box notguilty1
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 300
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #4 - May 15th, 2008 at 5:08pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
sackett wrote on May 15th, 2008 at 5:05pm:
T.M. Cullen wrote on May 15th, 2008 at 4:04pm:
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


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... Grin

Sackett

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





Wow I gave him way too much credit!! See I knew he would come back with some ingnorant post!!!!!! Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #5 - May 15th, 2008 at 5:10pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
Nope!  I believe Cullen IS an expert. 

An expert at propaganda, rote diatribe, insults, sarcasm and as always, thinking and speaking in circles.

He's a wonderful expert in his field!


Sackett
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #6 - May 15th, 2008 at 5:12pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
"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!  Cry

Sackett
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box notguilty1
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 300
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #7 - May 15th, 2008 at 5:14pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
sackett wrote on May 15th, 2008 at 5:10pm:
Nope!  I believe Cullen IS an expert.  

An expert at propaganda, rote diatribe, insults, sarcasm and as always, thinking and speaking in circles.

He's a wonderful expert in his field!


Sackett


Sackett it always amazes me how every time some one here post an intelligent agrument against the validity of your "device" you find nothing but ingnorant high school remarks to prove the opposing view.
BTW how old are you??
You are riding a doomed train and thats why you are on here DAILY protecting and delaying the CRASH!
The thing is most people are smarter than that and can see the truth. Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #8 - May 15th, 2008 at 5:18pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
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. Wink


Sackett

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Hawaii
Gender: male
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #9 - May 15th, 2008 at 8:11pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
I figured my post would strike a nerve.  It wasn't even original.  I believe first heard the notion that the polygraph was loosing based on a false syllogism back in the 80's while watching a video made by Dr. Phil Zimbardo during a Psych 101 class.  It was also in that video that Dr. Zimbardo made the quote exhibited in my signature below.

That polygraphers can't or won't show this false syllogism unappropriately applied toward the polygraph SPEAKS VOLUMES!

TC

P.S.

Polygraphers say silly things.
You also say silly things.
You are therefore a polygrapher!
Back to top
 

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #10 - May 15th, 2008 at 8:53pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
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. Tongue
P2:  When no-one laughs, gives oneself pity Embarrassed
Conclusion:  Must be a pity party participant who gets laughed at by all. Grin Grin Grin

Sad, sad, sad, Cry Cry Cry


Sackett

P.S.  It doesn't surprise me you would have to resort to plagerism...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Hawaii
Gender: male
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #11 - May 15th, 2008 at 11:19pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
Here is another popular false sillygism polygraphers make:

All legitimate, scientifically based tests produce some errors.
The polygraph produces some errors.
The polygraph is a legitimate, scientifically based test.


There are others.  And then there are the Non sequiturs!

TC
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 16th, 2008 at 3:19am by T.M. Cullen »  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box TheKaisho
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 20
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #12 - May 16th, 2008 at 1:53pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
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.






Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box cat
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 23
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #13 - May 16th, 2008 at 2:33pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
TheKaisho

I'm certainly no expert, but from what I gather so far is that: If the polygragher is bias, you've already lost the battle before you even entered the fighting grounds.

Personally, I think the test is communist, but that is just my personal opinion. 

I will say, as being a new user also, to this cite, it is informative.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #14 - May 16th, 2008 at 4:09pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
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
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 6
Reply Add Poll Send Topic Print
FALSE syllogism?
Open Live Preview Live Preview


You can resize the message area by dragging the right- or bottom border.
                       
Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1: