They Said I Made Admissions also..

[A True Libertarian]

Friend of Pete:

I think that the posts by "Beech Trees" and "anonymous" strongly refute your assertions. Therefore, I need not further respond.

[Tom Sawyer]

I agree that "Friend of Pete" has a distorted view of the libertarian movement! Those who are truly interested in the fight against misconduct by government officials and those who seek to promote individual rights should log onto the following links:

aclu.org
lp.org
and lets not forget: the cato institute website.

[Skeptic]

I agree that "Friend of Pete" has a distorted view of the libertarian movement! Those who are truly interested in the fight against misconduct by government officials and those who seek to promote individual rights should log onto the following links:

aclu.org
lp.org
rush.com
and lets not forget: the cato institute website.

Neil

Since we've strayed thoroughly off-topic:

although I applaud the inclusion of the ACLU's website in the above list (a "civil libertarian", not a "libertarian" organization), I also recommend those interested in bona-fide libertarianism read some material not written by libertarians themselves:

world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Skeptic

[Tom Sawyer]

Skeptic:

I agree that the ACLU may not be a "Libertarian" think tank. However, I included the organization as one of my links for many valid reasons. You cannot argue that some of the organization's view points support libertarian party objectives, such as: civil rights issues and the fight against the prohibition of drug laws?

[Skeptic]

Skeptic:

I agree that the ACLU may not be a "Libertarian" think tank. However, I included the organization as one of my links for many valid reasons. You cannot argue that some of the organization's view points support libertarian party objectives, such as: civil rights issues and the fight against the prohibition of drug and alcohol laws?

I agree completely that several objectives coincide.  The rationales are very different, though.

Is the fact that we've now ventured into political philosophy again an indicator that the pro-polygraph types really have been scared off by the NAS report?



Skeptic

[George W. Maschke]

Skeptic,

Our pro-polygraph friends have indeed been uncannily silent since Tuesday, 8 October...

 

[Fair Chance]

Yes George,

Are we watching the sunset on a beautiful day or are we just going through the eye of the hurricane?

[Skeptic]

Yes George,

Are we watching the sunset on a beautiful day or are we just going through the eye of the hurricane?

Both are probably a bit dramatic.  I would suspect that pro-polygraph types will be a bit sparse around here for a while.  The NAS report pretty much ends real debate, at least on the topic of polygraph security screening.

However, there's a difference between online debate and real-world results.

Skeptic

[Marty]

The NAS report pretty much ends real debate, at least on the topic of polygraph security screening.

Unfortunately, it doesn't.  It does expose what was well known (and accepted) within the polygraph community (high false positive rates). This is only new to the public at large. I hope the broader dissemination of this info changes things but am .... skeptical. One only has to look at how hard it is to get rid of things like facilitated communication, zero point energy (free energy fantasies), and cold fusion....

It also strongly encourages real, high quality, research which is sorely lacking. One can't be sure, a priori,  of the results of such research.

-Marty

[George W. Maschke]

Marty,

Actually, the NAS panel suggests that more polygraph research is not likely to significantly increase accuracy, stating at p. 8-2:

Future Potential The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.

...which is academese for saying that "investment" in polygraph research is a waste of money.

[Marty]

Marty,

Actually, the NAS panel suggests that more polygraph research is not likely to significantly increase accuracy, stating at ...which is academese for saying that "investment" in polygraph research is a waste of money.

I did NOT suggest more research was likely to increase accuracy, rather, it is needed because the research extant is so poorly done. It's just that one can not tell in advance what such research will yield. There is no reason to believe better research would show the polygraph more reliabile or less reliable than the current NAS estimates.  The NAS report calls for more research to determine where if anywhere it moght prove of some value. Also, they note the lack of almost any work on countermeasures other than a few anecdotes and that they were stonewalled in this area.


-Marty

[George W. Maschke]

Marty,

I did NOT suggest more research was likely to increase accuracy, rather, it is needed because the research extant is so poorly done. It's just that one can not tell in advance what such research will yield....

I suspect the same might be said of the extant research on phrenology. A dearth of competent research on a technique with such a weak theoretical basis as polygraphic lie detection does not necessarily create a compelling need for such research. Admittedly, such research may be of some interest from a pure science standpoint.

[Marty]

I don't recall the NAS describing phrenology as better than 50-50 at anything either. It doesn't even have placebo value which at least the polygraph can claim!

 

-Marty

[Skeptic]

Unfortunately, it doesn't.  It does expose what was well known (and accepted) within the polygraph community (high false positive rates). This is only new to the public at large. I hope the broader dissemination of this info changes things but am .... skeptical. One only has to look at how hard it is to get rid of things like facilitated communication, zero point energy (free energy fantasies), and cold fusion....

Fair enough.  Perhaps a better way to put it would be to note that the NAS report should realistically end debates of the type we've seen here at Antipolygraph.org (accuracy issues and countermeasure efficacy in screening applications).  If anything, it will shift the debate to where it belongs: whether it is rational and just to continue using a technique with such obvious drawbacks.

Perhaps you are correct that those drawbacks were widely known within the polygraph community, and perhaps not.  They certainly weren't unknown, but I have my doubts as to whether the average polygrapher knew the level of fraud in which he or she has been participating.  One does not need a world-class background in science and statistics to become a polygrapher.

Skeptic

[George W. Maschke]

Of course, it must be borne in mind that the NAS polygraph panel's conclusion that polygraphy can differentiate truth from deception at levels above chance in naive populations untrained in countermeasures is completely consistent with the notion that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud that depends for any success on a naive and gullible public.