FALSE syllogism?

[T.M. Cullen]

As you probably already know, a false syllogism ("Sillygism") draws the wrong conclusion from two premises.  For example:

Premise 1:  People who have just run a marathon sweat profusely.
Premise 2:  You are sweating profusely.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you have just run a marathon.

Not a valid conclusion.  Maybe you just stepped out of a sauna, worked in the yard on a hot day...etc.

The polygraph is based partially on a false Sillygism, which goes something like this:

P1:  People often react nervously when they purposely lie, or are purposely deceptive, when answering relevant questions.
P2:  You are reacting nervously when answering relevant questions.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you must be lying.


Again, not a valid conclusion:  Some people can lie their asses off without getting the least bit nervous   Many truthful people will react nervously by the mere insinuation that they are lying.

Logic 101

TC

[nopolycop]

And, here comes the pitch!!! T takes a mighty swing and POW, the ball shoots off the bat like a heat seeking missle, straight for the scoreboard!!!

HOME RUN, game over.

[sackett]

As you probably already know, a false syllogism ("Sillygism") draws the wrong conclusion from two premises.  For example:

Premise 1:  People who have just run a marathon sweat profusely.
Premise 2:  You are sweating profusely.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you have just run a marathon.

Not a valid conclusion.  Maybe you just stepped out of a sauna, worked in the yard on a hot day...etc.

The polygraph is based partially on a false Sillygism, which goes something like this:

P1:  People often react nervously when they purposely lie, or are purposely deceptive, when answering relevant questions.
P2:  You are reacting nervously when answering relevant questions.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you must be lying.


Again, not a valid conclusion:  Some people can lie their asses off without getting the least bit nervous   Many truthful people will react nervously by the mere insinuation that they are lying.

Logic 101

TC

Or perhaps Cullen,

Premise 1:  People who talk in circles are ignorant and can not learn.
Premise 2:  Your commentary linguistics pattern is circular in nature.
Conclusion:  You're an idiot!

Circular Logic 101

Read and learn...

Sackett

P.S.  No home run "n.p.c." wrong field... figures though!

[notguilty1]

As you probably already know, a false syllogism ("Sillygism") draws the wrong conclusion from two premises.  For example:

Premise 1:  People who have just run a marathon sweat profusely.
Premise 2:  You are sweating profusely.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you have just run a marathon.

Not a valid conclusion.  Maybe you just stepped out of a sauna, worked in the yard on a hot day...etc.

The polygraph is based partially on a false Sillygism, which goes something like this:

P1:  People often react nervously when they purposely lie, or are purposely deceptive, when answering relevant questions.
P2:  You are reacting nervously when answering relevant questions.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you must be lying.


Again, not a valid conclusion:  Some people can lie their asses off without getting the least bit nervous   Many truthful people will react nervously by the mere insinuation that they are lying.

Logic 101

TC

Hey TC

Well Put! I am sure as you know by now that the pro folks like Sackett will come back at you negating the obvious staing that your no expert and that they, are the only people that can accuratly evaluate thier very inaccurate machine.
And how your logic is way off.

However truth is truth ( Not polygraph established truth) and the non-science of this thing is evident ad obvious to all but the uninitiated as we all were at one point.

[notguilty1]

As you probably already know, a false syllogism ("Sillygism") draws the wrong conclusion from two premises.  For example:

Premise 1:  People who have just run a marathon sweat profusely.
Premise 2:  You are sweating profusely.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you have just run a marathon.

Not a valid conclusion.  Maybe you just stepped out of a sauna, worked in the yard on a hot day...etc.

The polygraph is based partially on a false Sillygism, which goes something like this:

P1:  People often react nervously when they purposely lie, or are purposely deceptive, when answering relevant questions.
P2:  You are reacting nervously when answering relevant questions.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you must be lying.


Again, not a valid conclusion:  Some people can lie their asses off without getting the least bit nervous   Many truthful people will react nervously by the mere insinuation that they are lying.

Logic 101

TC

Or perhaps Cullen,

Premise 1:  People who talk in circles are ignorant and can not learn.
Premise 2:  Your commentary linguistics pattern is circular in nature.
Conclusion:  You're an idiot!

Circular Logic 101

Read and learn...

Sackett

P.S.  No home run "n.p.c." wrong field... figures though!

Wow I gave him way too much credit!! See I knew he would come back with some ingnorant post!!!!!!

[sackett]

Nope!  I believe Cullen IS an expert.  

An expert at propaganda, rote diatribe, insults, sarcasm and as always, thinking and speaking in circles.

He's a wonderful expert in his field!


Sackett

[sackett]

"notguilty1"

give me no credit.  You guys make it easy and taking advantage of the mentally impaired is nothing to be proud of...and, I am not proud!

Successful apparently, but not proud!  

Sackett

[notguilty1]

Nope!  I believe Cullen IS an expert.  

An expert at propaganda, rote diatribe, insults, sarcasm and as always, thinking and speaking in circles.

He's a wonderful expert in his field!


Sackett

Sackett it always amazes me how every time some one here post an intelligent agrument against the validity of your "device" you find nothing but ingnorant high school remarks to prove the opposing view.
BTW how old are you??
You are riding a doomed train and thats why you are on here DAILY protecting and delaying the CRASH!
The thing is most people are smarter than that and can see the truth.

[sackett]

You point out an "intelligent" argument and I'll join in.  

I didn't start the name calling, false analogies, disinformative and improper application of so-called "logic." I'm just a sucker to a neandertholic and gutteral desire to defend myself.


Sackett

[T.M. Cullen]

I figured my post would strike a nerve.  It wasn't even original.  I believe first heard the notion that the polygraph was loosing based on a false syllogism back in the 80's while watching a video made by Dr. Phil Zimbardo during a Psych 101 class.  It was also in that video that Dr. Zimbardo made the quote exhibited in my signature below.

That polygraphers can't or won't show this false syllogism unappropriately applied toward the polygraph SPEAKS VOLUMES!

TC

P.S.

Polygraphers say silly things.
You also say silly things.
You are therefore a polygrapher!

[sackett]

Cullen,

no nerves struck here, just a desire to point out ignorance and misapplied information and disinformative diatribe. For example,

P1:  To tell a joke, one thinks themself witty.
P2:  When no-one laughs, gives oneself pity
Conclusion:  Must be a pity party participant who gets laughed at by all.

Sad, sad, sad,


Sackett

P.S.  It doesn't surprise me you would have to resort to plagerism...

[T.M. Cullen]

Here is another popular false sillygism polygraphers make:

All legitimate, scientifically based tests produce some errors.
The polygraph produces some errors.
The polygraph is a legitimate, scientifically based test.

There are others.  And then there are the Non sequiturs!

TC

[TheKaisho]

Yes, Sackett, but still, no one has given me a satisfactory answer to my very legitimate question.

I had two polygraphs over the same criminal charge.  There was NO objective evidence brought into the trial.  No physical evidence and no eyewitness identification.  Both polygraph exams were given by state licensed and vetted examiners, one private, the other from the state police.

I passed the private polygraph and failed the police polygraph.

If the polygraph is such an effective determinant of Truth and is supposedly reliable enough to do that, how does your profession explain away the dichotomy?

And please, do not hand me that crap about the machines being off or the quality of the examiners...just assume that all things were equal because as far as I could tell, other thna the private examiner having 27 years more exepreince than the police examiner, I found nothing different about the exams themselves to indicate that one was better than the other.

Just try to explain it to me in your best professional fashion, ok?

Take it easy...

Have a nice day.

[cat]

TheKaisho

I'm certainly no expert, but from what I gather so far is that: If the polygragher is bias, you've already lost the battle before you even entered the fighting grounds.

Personally, I think the test is communist, but that is just my personal opinion.  

I will say, as being a new user also, to this cite, it is informative.

[sackett]

TheKaisho,

your indignation is understandable.  But as your question presents itself my response is this.  With ignorance and indifference to the multitude of variables possible (as you insisted), there should not be a difference in the results of two perfectly equal and balanced tests.  

Bias, as suggested by cat is certainly a possibility, but there are hundreds of others; however, it is a variable that you have insisted I ignore.  For that reason, I nor anyone (with any true knowledge of polygraph) would be able to explain the dichotomy.


Sackett