- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 25, 2004, 03:54 AMJames,
You're quite right. Virtually the only people who claim any validity for polygraphy are those who have a personal stake in the continuation of the practice.
By contrast, there is virtual unanimity in the scientific community that polygraphic lie detection has no scientific basis.
I read your statement on the petition and am sorry to learn of your unfortunate experience. I hope you'll consider working with us to publicly expose polygraphy for the fraud that it is.
You're quite right. Virtually the only people who claim any validity for polygraphy are those who have a personal stake in the continuation of the practice.
By contrast, there is virtual unanimity in the scientific community that polygraphic lie detection has no scientific basis.
I read your statement on the petition and am sorry to learn of your unfortunate experience. I hope you'll consider working with us to publicly expose polygraphy for the fraud that it is.
Posted by James Banks
- Jun 25, 2004, 01:37 AMI shared a whopper of an experience when I e-signed the petition.
Since the time I took the poly and showed the bogus "deception" results, I've told many others of that experience. In two occasions, I was told return stories of the false positives, and thus the costing of jobs in both incidences (one was an attorney, another, a Naval Officer).
A friend of mine probably stated it best: "If you pass ...well... that doesn't prove anything... but if you fail, that proves everything!!!" I like that analogy.
Back to the 'subject' line:
My contention is, that poly operators have to continuously prove their instruments are valuable and give valid results. If EVER an operator came forward and denied the credibility of the machine, they'd loose their bread & butter profession.
So, what could a polygraph operator do if he wasn't operating a poly??? Not a lot of industry choices there... sounds like a pretty good reason to justify the validity of their equipment... and more scary.... it sounds like a GREAT reason for operators to promote the admissibility of the results into courts... lots more poly traffic and big bucks for them if that ever happens.
Since the time I took the poly and showed the bogus "deception" results, I've told many others of that experience. In two occasions, I was told return stories of the false positives, and thus the costing of jobs in both incidences (one was an attorney, another, a Naval Officer).
A friend of mine probably stated it best: "If you pass ...well... that doesn't prove anything... but if you fail, that proves everything!!!" I like that analogy.
Back to the 'subject' line:
My contention is, that poly operators have to continuously prove their instruments are valuable and give valid results. If EVER an operator came forward and denied the credibility of the machine, they'd loose their bread & butter profession.
So, what could a polygraph operator do if he wasn't operating a poly??? Not a lot of industry choices there... sounds like a pretty good reason to justify the validity of their equipment... and more scary.... it sounds like a GREAT reason for operators to promote the admissibility of the results into courts... lots more poly traffic and big bucks for them if that ever happens.