evidence and who oppose the relatively small group of scientists on the other side of the issue, opposing the admissibility of polygraph evidence. At the hearing, Dr. Honts rejected any proposal which might undermine the accuracy of polygraph evidence. Basically, according to him, those proposals lacked scientific support or were only supported by low quality studies or publications. According to Dr. Honts, only the studies conducted and articles published by the proponents of polygraph evidence are high quality and deserving of consideration by this court. The bias in Dr. Honts’ perspective is illustrated by the fact that highly regarded and peer reviewed journals (as identified by Dr. Honts) publish the studies conducted by and the articles written by the opponents of polygraph evidence admissibility. Also, although Dr. Honts struggled to avoid admitting the obvious, a recent report on polygraph examination reliability and validity issued by the National Academy of Science (“NAS”) questioned the quality of all of the available studies regarding polygraph accuracy including those in which Dr. Honts participated or on which he relies. After culling through hundreds of studies, the NAS panel used approximately fifty (50) studies for its review, including several of those in which Dr. Honts participated and/or which he deemed quality” as “high compared to the quality” of those challenging his “low position. However, the NAS noted: Virtually all the available scientific evidence on polygraph test validity comes from studies of specific-incident investigations, so the committee had to rely heavily on that evidence. . . . The general quality of the evidence for judging polygraph validity is relatively low: the substantial
evidence and who oppose the relatively small group of scientists on the other side of the issue, opposing the admissibility of polygraph evidence. At the hearing, Dr. Honts rejected any proposal which might undermine the accuracy of polygraph evidence. Basically, according to him, those proposals lacked scientific support or were only supported by low quality studies or publications. According to Dr. Honts, only the studies conducted and articles published by the proponents of polygraph evidence are high quality and deserving of consideration by this court. The bias in Dr. Honts’ perspective is illustrated by the fact that highly regarded and peer reviewed journals (as identified by Dr. Honts) publish the studies conducted by and the articles written by the opponents of polygraph evidence admissibility. Also, although Dr. Honts struggled to avoid admitting the obvious, a recent report on polygraph examination reliability and validity issued by the National Academy of Science (“NAS”) questioned the quality of all of the available studies regarding polygraph accuracy including those in which Dr. Honts participated or on which he relies. After culling through hundreds of studies, the NAS panel used approximately fifty (50) studies for its review, including several of those in which Dr. Honts participated and/or which he deemed “high quality” as compared to the “low quality” of those challenging his position. However, the NAS noted: Virtually all the available scientific evidence on polygraph test validity comes from studies of specific-incident investigations, so the committee had to rely heavily on that evidence. . . . The general quality of the evidence for judging polygraph validity is relatively low: the substantial
2014_THE_LIE_DETECTOR_IS_BULL22411.docx