- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 23, 2006, 11:18 AMJohnn,
In its response to the NAS report, the American Polygraph Association complains:
It is true that the APA was not invited to participate in the deliberations of the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. But neither was anyone else invited. The Committee's deliberations were private, and appropriately so.
A month or so before the NAS began its polygraph study, a proposed membership list of the polygraph review committee was published, and public comment was invited regarding the proposed members. To the best of my knowledge, the American Polygraph Association raised no objections.
Throughout its research review, which lasted well over a year, the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph invited members of the public to send any information or documents they thought relevant. AntiPolygraph.org did so on several occassions. If the American Polygraph Association did not avail itself of this opportunity, they have no one to blame but themselves.
The polygraph review committee also held a series of eight meetings, four of which were open to the public. To my knowledge, the American Polygraph Association did not send any representative to attend any of these public meetings. By contrast, I traveled to Washington, DC to give a presentation at one meeting, and AntiPolygraph.org co-founder Gino Scalabrini attended two of these public meetings. Our friends Drs. Drew C. Richardson and Alan P. Zelicoff also gave presentations at these public meetings.
Despite the American Polygraph Association's absence, the pro-polygraph view did not go unrepresented. Senior representatives of federal polygraph programs were present at all of the public meetings. David Renzelman, the former Department of Energy polygraph program manager gave a public presentation as did Dr. Andrew Ryan of DoDPI, both of whom were also present at the public meeting when I gave my presentation. In addition, the committee held two closed meetings at which the Department of Energy and CIA polygraph program managers, respectively, were able to discuss polygraph matters without any dissenting voices present. A subcommittee was also given a tour and briefing at DoDPI, which, again, was closed to members of the public.
And finally, the reason the NAS relied on only a small fraction of the polygraph studies conducted to date is simply that the vast majority of such "research" fails to meet the minimum standards of scientific rigor.
In its response to the NAS report, the American Polygraph Association complains:
QuoteWe wish to note that the APA was not invited to participate in any of the deliberations, nor consulted to provide responses to many questions raised in this project.
It is true that the APA was not invited to participate in the deliberations of the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. But neither was anyone else invited. The Committee's deliberations were private, and appropriately so.
A month or so before the NAS began its polygraph study, a proposed membership list of the polygraph review committee was published, and public comment was invited regarding the proposed members. To the best of my knowledge, the American Polygraph Association raised no objections.
Throughout its research review, which lasted well over a year, the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph invited members of the public to send any information or documents they thought relevant. AntiPolygraph.org did so on several occassions. If the American Polygraph Association did not avail itself of this opportunity, they have no one to blame but themselves.
The polygraph review committee also held a series of eight meetings, four of which were open to the public. To my knowledge, the American Polygraph Association did not send any representative to attend any of these public meetings. By contrast, I traveled to Washington, DC to give a presentation at one meeting, and AntiPolygraph.org co-founder Gino Scalabrini attended two of these public meetings. Our friends Drs. Drew C. Richardson and Alan P. Zelicoff also gave presentations at these public meetings.
Despite the American Polygraph Association's absence, the pro-polygraph view did not go unrepresented. Senior representatives of federal polygraph programs were present at all of the public meetings. David Renzelman, the former Department of Energy polygraph program manager gave a public presentation as did Dr. Andrew Ryan of DoDPI, both of whom were also present at the public meeting when I gave my presentation. In addition, the committee held two closed meetings at which the Department of Energy and CIA polygraph program managers, respectively, were able to discuss polygraph matters without any dissenting voices present. A subcommittee was also given a tour and briefing at DoDPI, which, again, was closed to members of the public.
And finally, the reason the NAS relied on only a small fraction of the polygraph studies conducted to date is simply that the vast majority of such "research" fails to meet the minimum standards of scientific rigor.
Posted by Johnn
- Jan 23, 2006, 02:27 AMI read of an argument that someone is having with one of the moderators over in the other pro-polygraph board. Basically, the woman is arguing that the polygraph is invalid and she cites the NAS's report as proof. But the polygraphers referred the individual to the response that the polygraph community gave the NAS:
http://www.polygraph.org/nasresponse.htm
The polygraph community feels that the report is not realistic because none of them were invited to the screenings.
They also mention that the NAS only used 57 reports as oppose to the thousands of journals which exist regarding the polygraph and techniques thereof.
Well, why should we have a bunch of liars and people who use deceit and trickery give their inputs on a scientific report, we are not researching Santa Claus, chicken bones or Witchcraft, this is a scientific report for heavens sake!
http://www.polygraph.org/nasresponse.htm
The polygraph community feels that the report is not realistic because none of them were invited to the screenings.
They also mention that the NAS only used 57 reports as oppose to the thousands of journals which exist regarding the polygraph and techniques thereof. Well, why should we have a bunch of liars and people who use deceit and trickery give their inputs on a scientific report, we are not researching Santa Claus, chicken bones or Witchcraft, this is a scientific report for heavens sake!