Testimony Vs Lie Detector

[Walden]

The insinuation of the OP is that LDS people are lying in their testimonies.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly.

Most testimonies I hear are appear to be honest, sincere and a reflection genuine belief.

I agree that a a lie-detector would likely be useless in determining if the testimonies of believers are true.

As George Constanza said, "Remember, it is not a lie if you believe it is true."

[scooby]

The insinuation of the OP is that LDS people are lying in their testimonies.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly.

I would prefer that this thread not be derailed with accusations.

Most testimonies I hear are appear to be honest, sincere and a reflection genuine belief.

And what do you think about the topic? Do you think that if a reliable lie detection method is realized that it could or should have a place in probing religious testimonies?

[elguanteloko]

I agree that a a lie-detector would likely be useless in determining if the testimonies of believers are true.

As George Constanza said, "Remember, it is not a lie if you believe it is true."

It could detect cognitive dissonance, though. Making CD conscious could be of great help to people. Imagine a machine that could potentially tell you what you suspect but avoid to reflect upon.

[cinepro]

Why, Peter? Why wouldn't you call lie detection a science?

Technically, a lie detector could probably be considered "science" in the same way that the study of a placebo could be considered "science".

But as far as it being an objective indicator of anything...no. It's the psychology between the interviewer and the interviewee, and the way in which the interviewer uses the "lie detector" (and the interviewee's beliefs about the detector's abilities) that is important.

The worst thing about lie-detectors are the "false-positives", or the "innocent" people that the test-giver accuses of lying based on the polygraph test. Even the most optimistic figures indicate that a lot of truthful people are getting accused of telling lies.

[elguanteloko]

Technically, a lie detector could probably be considered "science" in the same way that the study of a placebo could be considered "science".

But as far as it being an objective indicator of anything...no. It's the psychology between the interviewer and the interviewee, and the way in which the interviewer uses the "lie detector" (and the interviewee's beliefs about the detector's abilities) that is important.

So, why wouldn't it be a science or less of a science?

Seems to me you guys are confusing the results of science with the methods of science.

[SilverKnight]

And what do you think about the topic? Do you think that if a reliable lie detection method is realized that it could or should have a place in probing religious testimonies?

I think if you hooked up a typical LDS person to a polygraph, and asked them point-by-point if they wholeheartedly believe the various elements of their testimony, they would pass every time.

I think people are completely sincere about the things they say in their testimonies.

Are personal testimonies an accurate way of testing the validity of LDS truth claims? Absolutely not.

[cinepro]

So, why wouldn't it be a science or less of a science?

Seems to me you guys are confusing the results of science with the methods of science.

Because it's not measurable or repeatable. It's like asking whether science can determine the best tasting lemonade in the world. Sure, you could have a bunch of people taste a bunch of different lemonades, but in the end, have you "scientifically" determined anything?

Lie detector tests depend hugely on the types of questions that are asked by the interviewer, and the assumptions that are brought to the test by the interviewee. Is is possible for the interviewer to accuse the interviewee of lying and be right? Sure. Can he be wrong? Sure. The question is whether he is more likely to be right than wrong (either positive or negative).

In 1983, theCongressional Office of Technology Assessment looked at the data and concluded:

A major reason why scientific debate over polygraph validity yields conflicting conclusions is that the validity of such a complex procedure is very difficult to assess and may vary widely from one application to another. The accuracy obtained in one situation or research study may not generalize to different situations or to different types of persons being tested. Scientifically acceptable research on polygraph testing is hard to design and conduct.

Advocates of polygraph testing argue that thousands of polygraphs have been conducted which substantiate its usefulness in criminal or screening situations. Claims of usefulness, however, are often dependent on information (e.g., confessions and admissions) obtained before or after the actual test, and on its perceived value as a deterrent.

The focus of the OTA technical memorandum is not whether the polygraph test has been useful, but whether there is a scientific basis for its use. OTA concluded that, while there is some evidence for the validity of polygraph testing as an adjunct to typical criminal investigations of specific incidents, and more limited evidence when such investigations extend to incidents of unauthorized disclosure. However, there is very little research or scientific evidence to establish polygraph test validity in large-scale screening as part of unauthorized disclosure investigations, or in personnel security screening situations, whether they be preemployment, preclearance, periodic or aperiodic, random, or "dragnet." Substantial research beyond what is currently available or planned would have to be conducted in order to fully assess the scientific validity of the NSDD-84, DOD, and administration polygraph proposals.

[scooby]

I agree that a a lie-detector would likely be useless in determining if the testimonies of believers are true.

As George Constanza said, "Remember, it is not a lie if you believe it is true."

I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that a lie detector can determine whether a testimony is true (such as if God really exists, for example)—if that is what you're talking about here. I am talking about honesty in conviction. Are people really as convinced about something as they claim to be? An example would be to have a test subject who claims to "know beyond a shadow of a doubt" that something is true. We could use our hypothetically accurate lie detector to determine if that person really has no doubts. If they really don't, then it would lend credence to their cause. But if they do have doubts, then it would raise questions as to either their honesty or their mental well-being.

I believe that the development of the sort of brain-scanning technology that could be used for this sort of thing is probably inevitable, and I'm just thinking ahead to its likely interaction with the realm of religious conviction. I could see how advancing brain science could do much to endanger various scam organizations or even ones in which various kinds of mental-discordance exist among its sincere adherents. On the other hand, I think that it could also lend much credence to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by vindicating the honesty of many of its testimony-bearers.

[elguanteloko]

Because it's not measurable or repeatable. It's like asking whether science can determine the best tasting lemonade in the world. Sure, you could have a bunch of people taste a bunch of different lemonades, but in the end, have you "scientifically" determined anything?

Lie detector tests depend hugely on the types of questions that are asked by the interviewer, and the assumptions that are brought to the test by the interviewee. Is is possible for the interviewer to accuse the interviewee of lying and be right? Sure. Can he be wrong? Sure. The question is whether he is more likely to be right than wrong (either positive or negative).

In 1983, theCongressional Office of Technology Assessment looked at the data and concluded:

Science doesn't ask "what is the best tasting lemonade in the world?" but rather, "what lemonade produces the reactions normally associated with good taste more often or more intensely?" That is what lie detectors like polygraph and (very soon) MRI will do. The interpretations one gives to the data is key but that doesn't mean the methods of science aren't being used. Again, you are confusing the methods of science with the results of science.

[scooby]

It could detect cognitive dissonance, though. Making CD conscious could be of great help to people. Imagine a machine that could potentially tell you what you suspect but avoid to reflect upon.

I completely agree.

[cinepro]

Science doesn't ask "what is the best tasting lemonade in the world?" but rather, "what lemonade produces the reactions normally associated with good taste more often or more intensely?" That is what lie detectors like polygraph and (very soon) MRI will do. The interpretations one gives to the data is key but that doesn't mean the methods of science aren't being used. Again, you are confusing the methods of science with the results of science.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

If you're trying to say that science could theoretically "test" whether or not polygraphs somehow work, then sure. Science could also test psychic lie detectors, but that wouldn't make them "scientific".

I'm just saying that the principles upon which polygraphs work are based more on chance and psychology than anything having to do with physiology.

[elguanteloko]

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

If you're trying to say that science could theoretically "test" whether or not polygraphs somehow work, then sure. Science could also test psychic lie detectors, but that wouldn't make them "scientific".

I'm just saying that the principles upon which polygraphs work are based more on chance and psychology than anything having to do with physiology.

Polygraphs are machines that measure purely physiological aspects. That part of it has nothing to do with psychology and same with MRIs. About chance, MRI are pretty good at doing better than mere chance though never conclusively. I don't get how these aren't science.

[J Green]

I take a polygraph every few years in my line of work. They're based on physiological responses that are measurable and repeatable. This isn't to say that there isn't any subjectivity involved, but the science is pretty good and has come a long way from the 1980s. I believe given how the polygraph works that a believing Saint would indeed pass the test in regards to his or her testimony. I'm not sure about its usefulness, but I think the test could work.

[cinepro]

Polygraphs are machines that measure purely physiological aspects. That part of it has nothing to do with psychology and same with MRIs. About chance, MRI are pretty good at doing better than mere chance though never conclusively. I don't get how these aren't science.

I understand that they measure some aspects of physiology. I just don't believe that the physiology they measure can be interpreted consistently to the degree that they are useful for detecting "lies". I would certainly never submit to one, because even if it works with 90% accuracy, I wouldn't want to run the 1/10 chance of a false positive.

[J Green]

I understand that they measure some aspects of physiology. I just don't believe that the physiology they measure can be interpreted consistently to the degree that they are useful for detecting "lies". I would certainly never submit to one, because even if it works with 90% accuracy, I wouldn't want to run the 1/10 chance of a false positive.

They're not perfect, but I think your concerns are outdated by a few decades. My colleagues and I take them pretty regularly, and they are fairly predictable.

[elguanteloko]

I understand that they measure some aspects of physiology. I just don't believe that the physiology they measure can be interpreted consistently to the degree that they are useful for detecting "lies". I would certainly never submit to one, because even if it works with 90% accuracy, I wouldn't want to run the 1/10 chance of a false positive.

Even 75% is better than no idea what the percentage is. This plus other methods can help some of the time. I'm not saying to lock people up for this but you get the point.

[Walden]

On the other hand, I think that it could also lend much credence to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by vindicating the honesty of many of its testimony-bearers.

I'm just not sure what the end goal would be. How would the honesty of testimony bearers be "vindicated" by this technology? Just because they believe "honestly" in something doesn't make it true. I believe that most TBMs honestly believe in their testimony. As an atheist, I honestly believe that there is no god, but that means about squat in the grand scheme of things....in the end, it is just my belief, even though I honestly, truly believe it.

The only way that I could see this technology adding any insight is if one begins with the proposition that most LDS tesimony bearers are not true believers, but just going through the motions of baring their testimony without true conviction (which I don't believe is true).

[scooby]

I'm just not sure what the end goal would be. How would the honesty of testimony bearers be "vindicated" by this technology? Just because they believe "honestly" in something doesn't make it true.

I never said it did. The end goal is to detect dishonesty or, perhaps, cognitive dissonance.

I believe that most TBMs honestly believe in their testimony.

With our hypothetical lie detector, this would not have to be the subject of belief.

[cinepro]

Even 75% is better than no idea what the percentage is. This plus other methods can help some of the time. I'm not saying to lock people up for this but you get the point.

Just so I can see if I understand you, can you tell me if you consider the E-Meter to be scientific?

[scooby]

Technically, a lie detector could probably be considered "science" in the same way that the study of a placebo could be considered "science".

But as far as it being an objective indicator of anything...no.

"Lie detector" does not necessarily refer to a polygraph. Lie detection can certainly be called a science.

To call lie detection a science is no different than calling aviation a science. Even though some attempts at human flight back in the day proved ridiculous, aviation was nonetheless a science. The science of lie detection may be in its infancy, and certain of its attempts, such as the polygraph, may prove less-effective or even ineffective, but that doesn't mean we can't call lie detection a science. Beside the polygraph, for example, there are brain scans that have recently shown promise.

[cinepro]

"Lie detector" does not necessarily refer to a polygraph. Lie detection can certainly be called a science.

To call lie detection a science is no different than calling aviation a science. Even though some attempts at human flight back in the day proved ridiculous, aviation was nonetheless a science. The science of lie detection may be in its infancy, and certain of its attempts, such as the polygraph, may prove less-effective or even ineffective, but that doesn't mean we can't call lie detection a science. Beside the polygraph, for example, there are brain scans that have recently shown promise.

That's fair.

[elguanteloko]

Just so I can see if I understand you, can you tell me if you consider the E-Meter to be scientific?

That is an awkward question to ask. What of the E-Meter issue is science? It says there that it measures the galvanic skin response so I don't see how that isn't what is normally associated with scientific measurements. Now, their explanation of what causes the changes in GSR is pretty wacky so I guess that isn't part of science.

[Storm Rider]

I realize that lie detection is an imperfect science. The effectiveness of polygraphs has long been the subject of controversy, whereas brain scanning has shown some recent promise. If a reliable means of detecting lies could be developed, do you think that it could (or should) be used to probe the belief claims of religious adherents?

I got thinking about this while watching a FAIR conference address on cognitive dissonance by a lady psychologist, whose name I didn't catch, who said that she had wondered to herself whether she could pass a lie detector test while bearing her testimony. I found that interesting.

Do any of you know if any studies been done involving religious claims and lie detectors? Or that explore the comparison of religious conviction to other types of thoughts from a brain-scan/brain-study standpoint?

Such a strange thought. First, is this a test of faith or is it a test of how honest someone is when bearing testimony? Would you have really discovered something if you found that someone was lying? I don't see how; there is no knowledge in the vast majority of Christ's disciples. There is only the hope of its truth and the full range of feelings up to knowing it is true.

Ask me how much I would give for the opinion of a psycho, I mean psychologist, on cognitive dissonance? Let's just say a wooden nickel would be too much.

[scooby]

there is no knowledge in the vast majority of Christ's disciples.

Then why do the vast majority of them say "I know" when sharing their testimony?