- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Mriddle6 (Guest)
- Sep 10, 2002, 06:10 AMDr, Barland:
You talkie, talkie say nothing. Dr Drew Richardson has made very strong aguments that CQT testing poses grave threats to our National Security because:
1) They can be easily beaten by countermeasures
2) They can not determine whether someone is reacting out of fear of consequence or fear of detection or any other strong emotion such as anger etc.... So your guessing.
Do you feel his assertions are false? if so please explain. Surely by doing so would not threaten National Security any more than the polygraph itself.
You talkie, talkie say nothing. Dr Drew Richardson has made very strong aguments that CQT testing poses grave threats to our National Security because:
1) They can be easily beaten by countermeasures
2) They can not determine whether someone is reacting out of fear of consequence or fear of detection or any other strong emotion such as anger etc.... So your guessing.
Do you feel his assertions are false? if so please explain. Surely by doing so would not threaten National Security any more than the polygraph itself.
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 04, 2002, 08:15 PMQuote from: Gordon H. Barland on Sep 04, 2002, 03:13 AM
Skeptic,
Ad hominem refers to trying to discredit the message by discrediting the bearer of the message. The readers of this bulletin board, I believe, are intelligent enough to determine on their own whether the message is worthy or not. I prefer to keep polemics out of the discussions.
The above definition is essentially the one I already presented (please see Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies -- argumentum ad hominem). In order to demonstrate an argument is "ad hominem", one must show that it is irrelevant to the point at hand. Since your evasions and the reasons behind them are very much the point (indeed, you made them the point), your intellectual honesty is most certainly relevant to the discussion.
As for polemics, weren't you the one who ducked under the umbrella of "national security" and cried "ad hominem" (easily the most common term in internet debate after "Hitler" and "nazis") when your motives for such were reasonably questioned? Are we now to accept your lack of argument as an argument? At least for me, that simply won't fly -- I've seen "I know but can't tell you how" used in lieu of real argumentation too many times to give such smoke-and-mirror games any credence.
Logical and serious points have been raised regarding R/I efficacy and implications not only for national security but individual fairness and due process, as well. Reasonable questions have been put to you that could be answered with no conceivable harm to national security. Either respond in kind or you have lost this debate.
Skeptic
Posted by Anonymous
- Sep 04, 2002, 06:26 PMPDD-Fed,
You invite scorn when you make such ridiculous comparisons.
You write:
...and considerably more respected too. The problem with Polygraph is not that it contains advertisements from polygraph manufacturers, but that it contains little of substance and nothing that could be trusted to be anything other than polygraph-community filtered pabulum. JAMA is cited internationally on an almost daily basis in the media and is read by countless individuals other than those in the medical profession. This is because it is considered to be both informative and authoritative. Polygraph is considered a joke even by the few serious psychophysiologists involved in polygraphy. As you said, "Now c'mon." Let's get real. This comparison is about as phony as can possibly be...sorry if the truth hurts...
You invite scorn when you make such ridiculous comparisons.
You write:
Quote...In fact, if you were to compare the two publicications [Sic], you would find that JAMA is far more commercial and political in content than the APA journal...
...and considerably more respected too. The problem with Polygraph is not that it contains advertisements from polygraph manufacturers, but that it contains little of substance and nothing that could be trusted to be anything other than polygraph-community filtered pabulum. JAMA is cited internationally on an almost daily basis in the media and is read by countless individuals other than those in the medical profession. This is because it is considered to be both informative and authoritative. Polygraph is considered a joke even by the few serious psychophysiologists involved in polygraphy. As you said, "Now c'mon." Let's get real. This comparison is about as phony as can possibly be...sorry if the truth hurts...
Posted by PDD-Fed
- Sep 04, 2002, 06:05 PMQuote from: Anonymous on Sep 04, 2002, 04:15 PM
PDD-Fed,
...With regard to your initial suggested analogy, perhaps you might care to ask JAMA if they think your comparison is reasonable. Perhaps they will consider you and your colleagues professionals of equal stature...right. I wouldn't bet the ranch on it though if I were you, nor do I think a survey of the citizenry regarding your two groups would jive with your present notions of comparability. I realize you and your colleagues desire some respect, but I'm afraid for the time being you're the Rodney Dangerfields of professional wannabes.
Now c'mon. I didn't ask for insults...
I simply made the comparison that like JAMA, the APA journal presents relevant research as well as fowards the interests of the community it serves. In fact, if you were to compare the two publicications, you would find that JAMA is far more commercial and political in content than the APA journal.Chow...
PDD-Fed
Posted by Anonymous
- Sep 04, 2002, 04:15 PMPDD-Fed,
The major difference (there are many) between JAMA and Polygraph is that one is a peer-reviewed publication of an association that universally is accepted as meriting professional recognition. The latter is neither peer-reviewed (by relevant science professionals) nor is the publication of a recognized professional organization. Polygraphy must first become a profession (currently a trade organization) and then publish and associate with other professional groups (ala the present attempt to commingle with the forensic science community). The reverse is getting the cart before the horse at best.
With regard to your initial suggested analogy, perhaps you might care to ask JAMA if they think your comparison is reasonable. Perhaps they will consider you and your colleagues professionals of equal stature...right . I wouldn't bet the ranch on it though if I were you, nor do I think a survey of the citizenry regarding your two groups would jive with your present notions of comparability. I realize you and your colleagues desire some respect, but I'm afraid for the time being you're the Rodney Dangerfields of professional wannabes.
The major difference (there are many) between JAMA and Polygraph is that one is a peer-reviewed publication of an association that universally is accepted as meriting professional recognition. The latter is neither peer-reviewed (by relevant science professionals) nor is the publication of a recognized professional organization. Polygraphy must first become a profession (currently a trade organization) and then publish and associate with other professional groups (ala the present attempt to commingle with the forensic science community). The reverse is getting the cart before the horse at best.
With regard to your initial suggested analogy, perhaps you might care to ask JAMA if they think your comparison is reasonable. Perhaps they will consider you and your colleagues professionals of equal stature...right
. I wouldn't bet the ranch on it though if I were you, nor do I think a survey of the citizenry regarding your two groups would jive with your present notions of comparability. I realize you and your colleagues desire some respect, but I'm afraid for the time being you're the Rodney Dangerfields of professional wannabes.Posted by PDD-Fed
- Sep 04, 2002, 03:36 PMQuote from: Anonymous on Sep 04, 2002, 12:49 PM
PDD-Fed,
...With regard to the trade publication, "Polygraph," a publication of the American Polygraph Association, I believe it will never reach the status of an accepted peer-reviewed periodical in the world of psychophysiology (under present circumstances) for two reasons. I spoke of one yesterday--lack of scientific rigor, but the other is equally important--lack of independence. As long as "Polygraph" has any connection to the APA, a trade organization for those foisting (ok, admittedly a bit heavy handed characterization, albeit accurate
I understand and appreciate your points. However, if I am not mistaken, the APA (polygraph) organization has two publications. One is indeed a "newsletter" and is named as such. It carries things like adds for instrument manufacturers, help wanted ads, etc. The other publication is an actual jounal, which addresses operational and legal issues, research methodology, actual research studies, etc. It compares at least in its structure and format, to scientific journals such as the AAFS and JAMA journals.
In fact, I would argue that JAMA, the journal of that American Medical Association, is a trade publication, not much unlike the Journal of the APA. It serves not only as an outlet for medical research, But as a "trade" publication (furthering the position of its members). In fact, the medical community has long used JAMA as a mouthpiece for defending its position on many commercial and political issues. How is that unlike the APA Journal? What am I not understanding here?
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Sep 04, 2002, 02:53 PMQuoteMark,
I'm not sure what you are referring to: the CQT, the RI, or polygraph in general.
Polygraph in general.
Posted by Anonymous
- Sep 04, 2002, 12:49 PMPDD-Fed,
Although I should have mentioned the following in our discussion yesterday, since my good friend, Beech, raised the issue of peer-reviewed journals once again, I will take the liberty of revisiting the subject once more.
With regard to the trade publication, "Polygraph," a publication of the American Polygraph Association, I believe it will never reach the status of an accepted peer-reviewed periodical in the world of psychophysiology (under present circumstances) for two reasons. I spoke of one yesterday--lack of scientific rigor, but the other is equally important--lack of independence. As long as "Polygraph" has any connection to the APA, a trade organization for those foisting (ok, admittedly a bit heavy handed characterization, albeit accurate ) a business on the American public, it will never be deemed to have the requisite independence to be considered a reputable scientific journal. As it now stands, such a representation would be tantamount to R.J. Reynolds tobacco company suggesting its employee newsletter should be considered part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the world of pulmonary physiology.
Although I should have mentioned the following in our discussion yesterday, since my good friend, Beech, raised the issue of peer-reviewed journals once again, I will take the liberty of revisiting the subject once more.
With regard to the trade publication, "Polygraph," a publication of the American Polygraph Association, I believe it will never reach the status of an accepted peer-reviewed periodical in the world of psychophysiology (under present circumstances) for two reasons. I spoke of one yesterday--lack of scientific rigor, but the other is equally important--lack of independence. As long as "Polygraph" has any connection to the APA, a trade organization for those foisting (ok, admittedly a bit heavy handed characterization, albeit accurate
) a business on the American public, it will never be deemed to have the requisite independence to be considered a reputable scientific journal. As it now stands, such a representation would be tantamount to R.J. Reynolds tobacco company suggesting its employee newsletter should be considered part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the world of pulmonary physiology.Posted by beech trees
- Sep 04, 2002, 12:22 PMQuote from: PDD-Fed on Sep 03, 2002, 12:33 PM
Secondly, on the subject of peer review, when a person submits a paper to (for example) The Journel of the American Psychological Association, it is "peer reviewed" by three members of that esteemed field of scientific endevour. This is appropriate, since only experts in that field should judge the quality of any submission.
You mean like this one?
Psychologists Surveyed On Lie Detectors Say Most Are Not Valid ...Not Scientifically Sound and Can Be Easily Deceived. 'The Validity of the Lie Detector: Two Surveys of Scientific Opinion,' by W.G. Iacono, Ph.D., and D.T. Lykken, Ph.D.,University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, in Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.82, No. 3.
The press release can be read by clicking the above hyperlink or here
Take note the R/I test is not even considered worthy of inclusion in the survey.
QuoteYet, if three graduate degree holding members of the American Polygraph Association were to "peer review" a paper submitted for publication in its journel, and they were to accept that paper, that work would be immediately dismissed by the people who post to this site... Am I wrong in this assumption?
Graduate degrees in what field? The 'journel' of the American Polygraph Association is not considered a peer-reviewed journal.
Posted by Anonymous
- Sep 04, 2002, 11:57 AMGordon,
Earlier in this thread I asked you the following:
George has asked you to revisit the notion of ethics and forensic test manipulation (presumably a reference to polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures and something you further made reference to with Skeptic). Before we launch off into the world of ethics again, I think, in order to avoid getting the cart before the horse, we need to establish what is a forensic test. Nothing about polygraphy suggests to me that it is currently deserving of inclusion in such a grouping. A substantive answer from you citing example(s) (again I realize that, as was the case for which you were asked to cite examples from the peer-reviewed literature establishing RI validity, you are not compelled to do so) would go a long way towards resolving this matter. PDD-Fed, if you are there, perhaps you might care to help Gordon out again if you are so able...
Earlier in this thread I asked you the following:
Quote...Perhaps you might care to suggest a recognized discipline within the American Academy of Forensic Sciences whose procedures and practices depend upon deception, misrepresentation, and the need for a universally ignorant public. I am not aware of any...
George has asked you to revisit the notion of ethics and forensic test manipulation (presumably a reference to polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures and something you further made reference to with Skeptic). Before we launch off into the world of ethics again, I think, in order to avoid getting the cart before the horse, we need to establish what is a forensic test. Nothing about polygraphy suggests to me that it is currently deserving of inclusion in such a grouping. A substantive answer from you citing example(s) (again I realize that, as was the case for which you were asked to cite examples from the peer-reviewed literature establishing RI validity, you are not compelled to do so) would go a long way towards resolving this matter. PDD-Fed, if you are there, perhaps you might care to help Gordon out again if you are so able...
Posted by Gordon H. Barland
- Sep 04, 2002, 10:11 AMMark,
I'm not sure what you are referring to: the CQT, the RI, or polygraph in general.
Peace,
Gordon
I'm not sure what you are referring to: the CQT, the RI, or polygraph in general.
Peace,
Gordon
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 04, 2002, 05:29 AMGordon,
You concluded one of your replies to Skeptic earlier in this message thread:
I (and no doubt others) would be interested in a discussion of this topic. Perhaps you might initiate such with a new message thread?
You concluded one of your replies to Skeptic earlier in this message thread:
QuoteI haven't touched upon the ethics of teaching someone how to manipulate a forensic test.
I (and no doubt others) would be interested in a discussion of this topic. Perhaps you might initiate such with a new message thread?
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Sep 04, 2002, 03:59 AMGordon,
I have to say that I find it strange, and discordant, that on the one hand you value civilized discourse (as do I, and thanks for recognizing that, though I didn't find George's comments to you vituperative or non-substantive), yet on the other, you advocate a technique that in practice is often characterized by the polygraph examiner's abuse, distortion of the subject's words, arrogance, deception, crassness, vitriol, intimidation, and puffery.
If it were just a pure diagnostic tool, that would be one thing, but the polygraph is used as a cudgel. How do you reconcile this?
I have to say that I find it strange, and discordant, that on the one hand you value civilized discourse (as do I, and thanks for recognizing that, though I didn't find George's comments to you vituperative or non-substantive), yet on the other, you advocate a technique that in practice is often characterized by the polygraph examiner's abuse, distortion of the subject's words, arrogance, deception, crassness, vitriol, intimidation, and puffery.
If it were just a pure diagnostic tool, that would be one thing, but the polygraph is used as a cudgel. How do you reconcile this?
Posted by Gordon H. Barland
- Sep 04, 2002, 03:13 AMSkeptic,
Ad hominem refers to trying to discredit the message by discrediting the bearer of the message. The readers of this bulletin board, I believe, are intelligent enough to determine on their own whether the message is worthy or not. I prefer to keep polemics out of the discussions.
Peace,
Gordon
Ad hominem refers to trying to discredit the message by discrediting the bearer of the message. The readers of this bulletin board, I believe, are intelligent enough to determine on their own whether the message is worthy or not. I prefer to keep polemics out of the discussions.
Peace,
Gordon
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 03, 2002, 02:41 PMQuote from: Gordon H. Barland on Sep 03, 2002, 11:40 AM
George,
I thought you took pride in discussing issues and not making ad hominem attacks. Why are you now throwing around labels like "intellectually dishonest?" Mark Mallah and Drew Richardson are now the only regular contributors here who avoid verbal brick bats.
In general, "ad hominem" refers to the use of personal attacks to discredit in lieu of logical argumentation. Since George has already made a logical case and used it to conclude that you are being intellectually dishonest, I don't believe his statement meets the definition.
QuoteI was taught that just because a question is asked, it doesn't mean that I have to answer it. I reserve the right of all people posting on the Internet to decide which I will answer. I do have other priorities in life.
No one says you have to answer anything, Dr. Barland. Of course, others are completely free to draw conclusions regarding your reasons for such refusals, as well as the implications for your position in any debate. Welcome to internet discussions
As for your "other priorities", my own inference, based upon your frequent posts, is that it is not lack of time which drives your non-answers.
Peace, indeed,
Skeptic