SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 12:43am:


Seems as if Sancho is the self proclaimed expert in all that is and who knows that may even be so. 
However he still FAILS to realize that in the states that licensing is NOT required for Polygraphs it doesn't matter if you charge or not it's still a pseudo-science that is not deemed in need of licensing by what he admits is nearly half the states in our country.

However, in ALL states licensing is required to cut hair. Since most here can agree that we are talking about a "profession" as in 
"earning a living"  I think the charging for services was implied. I don't know too many people walking around with a Polygraph under their arm as a party entertainment. ( though it would probably have the best use there )

Sancho, your put downs only serve to show those who come here for some information what they are to encounter when dealing with those in your "profession".
Now as usual the topic has gone away from the core issue which is that Polygraph is a pseudo-science and time and time again whether by personal experience or yet another news story. The inaccuracy and unreliability of polygraph is shown. 

G Scalabr wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 11:18pm:


Gino Scalabrini. You should really take some dance lessons.

When you use "absolute" statements, like the one above, in your argument, you are either 100% correct or 100% wrong. Qualifying your statement in rebuttal is just a feeble attempt to bolster your argument by selective observation.

Sancho Panza

G Scalabr wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 3:55am:


Let me see if I understand your request here.   

My point is that legislation prohibiting polygraph without a license is an effective detrrent to the practice.

You want me to research proof that I am wrong.

Nice try Señor Scalabrini. 

Sancho Panza

notguilty1 wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 9:55pm:


Notguilty1.  Off track?  You couldn’t find the track if you lived on the infield at Talladega. 

Every time a news report of a polygraph examination doesn't turn out the way you think it should you resort to the same old causal reductionism and arrive at the fallacious conclusion that the results you don't agree with must be caused by an inherent problem with polygraph in general. 

Absent concrete information that these agents were somehow taught some sort of countermeasure that allowed them to pass their  polygraph, not only are your conclusions premature, they fail to acknowledge more plausible explanations offered by people who know considerably more about polygraph than having failed one in the past. You know even less about how Law Enforcement operations are conducted. 

Instead you act like your selective observations from reading stories similar to yours on this site coupled with an ad nauseum repetition of the same old drivel automatically grants you similar status with Dr. Mascke, TwoBlock, Sergeant, Cullen, or even Gino, who even though we disagree about polygraph, at least provide stimulating and often refreshing discourse.    Hardly.


Sancho Panza

See everybody is good for something. I was looking for an illustration to explain causal reductionism stemming from selective observation and here you build a fine example into your post and top it all off with a conclusion that gives a pretty good example of non sequiter.

When you rely only on examples where polygraph may have been less than perfect to arrive at your conclusions, you ignore the thousands of polygraph examinations whose results were confirmed accurate. If polygraph were pure chance as you claim there should be somewhere closer to a 50/50 split.  

The reason we should be looking for some explanation other than countermeasures in the Mongols case stems from the N.A.S. report you like to cherry pick. 
Quote:
 
I do not believe that under those circumstances the goverment would encourage agents to attempt countermeasures because if they were caught trying them they would have been killed. 


The number of people in your "group" is growing?   If the petition here is any indication It's growth is less than 200 a year. There are more people than that reporting alien abductions.


Sancho Panza

notguilty1 wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 4:39pm:


Thats just one of the differences between you and I. You read an article or two, add your preconceived notions that you formed mostly from the other posters here and you use this severely limited and one-sided information to form a concrete opinion and make statements like "the Gary Ridgway case, one that has no question"  That is a pretty good example of Selective Observation.

I still have questions about the Ridgway case and until those questions are answered, I still have the ability to retain an open mind. 

While  news reports state that he "passed his polygraph", we don't really know what the word "passed" means in this context because no one has ever said what questions he was asked. Everyone seems to assume that he was asked if he committed one or more murders, but we don't know that. He may have been polygraphed as a witness rather than a suspect.  If he gave them leads that they were trying to confirm the the questions might have been different and he may not have even been asked "THE BIG QUESTION. I know that a blind review of his polygraph charts were later scored as inconclusive by an examiner who did not know the name of the person taking the test or the case that was being investigated. I know that false positives and false negatives occur in tests. Most of all I know that a relatively small group of reported errors does not invalidate polygraph. I also know that it really isn't fair to judge the state of Polygraph today by a test that was conducted 24 years ago especially absent more case specific information.

So I am not avoiding explaining the Ridgeway case, I am am just refusing to jump to conclusionsas long as plausible alternative explanations exist.  Jumping to conclusions with limited information seems to be your job. 


Sancho Panza

notguilty1 wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 11:44pm:



You just refuse to read anything that doesn't support your opinion don't you?  I guess if you can just allow yourself to ignore things you don't agree with you can aways declare yourself right.  I haven't said anything about Ridgway not being a killer. I just said that because specific information concerning his polygraph has never been released it is a fallacious argument for you to conclude and contend that his polygraph results prove anything one way or the other about the accuracy or validity of polygraph. This is an entirely different issue from is guilt or innocence. The way that blood is collected at crime scenes hasn't changed much in 25 years, the composition of blood hasn't changed much either. What has changed is the way it is analyzed and our understanding of the information we receive from it.

The consensus among scientists are that alien abductions have not really  happened, but they must be wrong because there are ten times as many people claiming abduction by aliens than are complaining about failing a polygraph while telling the truth.


Sancho Panza