1st4th5thand6th, I concede that polygraph is, in a very practical sense, more religion than it is science.

That said, according to the catechism of the polygraph church (so to speak), there are indeed "patterns."

Funny thing is, certain patterns appear (and apply) more often than not in specific-issue testing, meaning the test actually "works" -- although ther error rate is huge, generally speaking.

The polygraph indu$trialists and apologists, who vehemently disagree with me about the "huge" error rate, would contend that the mere fact that specific-issue testing "works" more often than not therefore means polygraph is, after a fashion, scientifically reliable.

I prefer to think of polygraph more as a "faith-based science" -- an oxymoron, I know. But it seems to fit.

As for true scientific scrutiny, who needs it when you have more than enough believers to go around?

Here's a fun fact: Polygraph use is growing not just in the USA, but world wide. 

It's unbelievable.

And the USA is "exporting" polygraph at heretofore unseen levels, from what I've seen.

Why the solid growth?

There are three reasons, IMHO. They are:

1. Polygraph is a moneymaking enterpri$e (on many levels)
2. People want to believe in polygraph 
3. Polygraph has undeniable utility.

Of course, all of the above is just the opinion of a lowly polygraph operator. Others will disagree.