|
George,
Thank you for the helpful advice. Many years ago, prior to coming to antipolygraph.org I did some extensive research into case law regarding polygraph testing. I am not all that worried about it at this stage of the game. I am also waiting on a call back from my lawyer for more specific advice. I had no idea that gnats could be so narcissistic. How do you cram so much arrogance into such a small space? It really amazes me.
I did a term paper in college on parole reform in the mid 90’s. Within the context of this paper I did some study and research into polygraph testing. I came to the conclusion THEN that polygraph testing was junk science. As far as today, I still have the same convictions; only much more deeply.
In my estimation, the only reason that polygraph testing is “generally accepted” by the US population as a whole is because of:
1) General wide spread ignorance of the scientific disciplines
2) What I call the “deification of science.”
People must understand that science was brought into existence by imperfect human beings. Therefore, when we say we are “85% certain about X”, we are not REALLY 100% certain about that. Our epistemological hardware and software has limitations. If we do not humble our expectations we end up putting our faith and trust in things that are not trustworthy (the polygraph produces “test results” therefore it MUST be SCIENCE). Many other factors play a role in our belief structuring; this is one of the many factors.
In addition, my own profession gives me insight to the lack of validity in polygraph testing. The test lacks what I call “variable definition and control.” What on earth does this mean?? Since the polygraph ONLY measures PHYSIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS we must ask ourselves the following: what variables can have an impact on the overall test results (chart readings)? The answer: numerous. With this in mind, we must be able to DEFINE, ISOLATE and MAINTAIN those variables in a tight CONTROL BAND in order to have a high degree of confidence that the output test results are the direct result of stress due to someone allegedly lying.
Anyone with a touch-and-go understanding of data interpretation knows that in order to determine an output reading variable X, you must have a base line comparison variable Y. Hence, I know through over 50,000 hours experience the ins and outs of the polygraph WITHOUT antipolygraph.org.
Also, the human brain conducts calculations at a rate of 100 TRILLION per second. I highly doubt that the American Pharse Association has the technology to weed out all the “noise” from their supposed test “signal.”
With the above, I do not need antipolygraph.org to help me determine the total hoax of the polygraph. Also, with over 30+ years experience with the federal government in one shape or form, I know the game quite well.
I would like to see fix-a-flat, Dr. Mengele, or any other Voodoo Test Administrator (VTA) prove cause and effect without resorting to STATISTICAL CORRELATIONS. I know this takes the legs out of your arguments, and that your only response will be steeped in anger, a desire for revenge, and frustration associated with the inability to accurately guess the number of red gum balls in the fish bowl at your local candy counter.
Prove your worth by answering the following:
A group of police officers have breathalyzers displaying false drunkenness in 5% of the cases in which the driver is sober. However, the breathalyzers never fail to detect a truly
drunk person. One in a thousand drivers is driving drunk. Suppose the police officers then stop a driver at random, and force the driver to take a breathalyzer test. It indicates that the driver is drunk. We assume you don't know anything else about him or her. How high is the probability he or she really is drunk?
P.S. I love PCSOT - Pickles, Cheese, Sausage On Toast!
|
Pages: 1
On federal "supervised release" (Read 6856 times)
