Twoblock
My most recent post in this thread that generated your response on the subject clearly states that the NAS did not conduct any new or original laboratory or field research on polygraph testing. THEY DIDN’T.
Scientific Research is defined as the systematic observation of phenomena for the purpose of learning new facts or testing the application of theories to known facts. Reviewing someone else’s work is at best secondary or desk research.
I wonder why you would choose to call the NAS report “RESEARCH” when there isn’t a single sentence any where in their report “The Polygraph and Lie Detection” that calls their activity Research. Could it be that as scientists they knew they were not conducting research, in the scientific sense, even if you don’t?
In fact the authors of the report clearly Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph very clearly describes the task with which they were charged as follows;
Quote:The Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph was asked by the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct a scientific review of the research (emphasis added) on polygraph examinations that pertain to their validity and reliability, particularly for personnel security screening, and to provide suggestions for further research,
If you are willing to refer to what they did as Secondary research (also known as desk research) defined as the summary, collation and/or synthesis of existing research; in future posts, I will be willing to refer to what they didn’t do as Primary research ie experiments, investigations, or tests carried out to acquire primary data from, for example, research subjects or experiments.
This should end the semantic argument and allow us to move on.
Sancho Panza