Freethought & Rationalism Archive

excreationist · 03-17-2003, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
{b]The chance of a false positive can be determined by the lab and generally is far less than 1 in 100,000--that sort of number normally comes from poor samples.[/b]

In DNA testing I think only some of the DNA is studied... not the whole 3 billion(?) basepairs.

Quote:

Even if he knew he might not be guilty. I know I've eaten a pot cookie. I found out two months after eating it.

Well when asked the question "have you used illegal drugs?" you could truthfully say "Yes, I've eaten a pot cookie. But I found out two months after eating it."

Loren Pechtel · 03-17-2003, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist
Apparently they use polygraphs in integorations sometimes... and as I later explain, polygraphs aren't accepted by scientists and many other experts as being reliable.
Perhaps the technology/techniques aren't quite good enough at the moment... but I think it seems possible that they will be in the near future. That's my point about this thread... the very real possibility of a new kind of lie detector - one that works. The part about the suffocation is irrelevant really - unless you want to interogate them faster.

I agree that we are going to develop such a machine someday. I expect the day won't be that far in the future, either.

The polygraph has its uses but it's at best an aid other than guilty knowledge tests.

Loren Pechtel · 03-17-2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by excreationist
In DNA testing I think only some of the DNA is studied... not the whole 3 billion(?) basepairs.

I don't know the details of how they actually test. I know that they can have some extremely low chances of a false positive.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 03-17-2003, 09:59 PM

excreationist:

More humane than regular torture?!?

It's still torture for chrissake!

excreationist · 03-18-2003, 01:12 AM

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ:
Well the fMRI-suffocation high-speed interogation technique is only meant to be painful if they tell any lies (and perhaps if they refuse to talk). In normal torture they might hurt you when you're actually telling the truth, just to be on the "safe" side.
It just doesn't seem as bad as crude methods though I guess it would be just as terrifying. Martin Buber gave this link to an article about the U.S. sending terrorists to other countries to be interogated (tortured) since that amount of "psychological pressure" can't be applied in the U.S. When I heard about that in the news a month or two ago, I felt some sympathy for the captured terrorist but I also thought that was perhaps justified. Like the article pointed out, none of the media seemed to care that the U.S. was having the terrorists sent to third-world countries to be interogated (tortured).

Henry-Finland · 03-18-2003, 01:13 AM

Yes, but tested on the Administration, what do You think would be the result? (Working like in the original excreationist's OP).
Everyone gets life? Or someone gets the chair?

Henry

Loren Pechtel · 03-18-2003, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry-Finland
Yes, but tested on the Administration, what do You think would be the result? (Working like in the original excreationist's OP).
Everyone gets life? Or someone gets the chair?

Henry

Yeah. I read a book a while back with a base hypothesis of an infallible lie detector. I seriously disagreed with the author about what would happen--Washington would find some way to discredit it, they wouldn't support it.

(James Halperin, "The Truth Machine".)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2003, 08:29 PM	#23
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by excreationist In DNA testing I think only some of the DNA is studied... not the whole 3 billion(?) basepairs. I don't know the details of how they actually test. I know that they can have some extremely low chances of a false positive.

03-17-2003, 09:59 PM	#24
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	excreationist: More humane than regular torture?!? It's still torture for chrissake!

03-18-2003, 01:12 AM	#25
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ: Well the fMRI-suffocation high-speed interogation technique is only meant to be painful if they tell any lies (and perhaps if they refuse to talk). In normal torture they might hurt you when you're actually telling the truth, just to be on the "safe" side. It just doesn't seem as bad as crude methods though I guess it would be just as terrifying. Martin Buber gave this link to an article about the U.S. sending terrorists to other countries to be interogated (tortured) since that amount of "psychological pressure" can't be applied in the U.S. When I heard about that in the news a month or two ago, I felt some sympathy for the captured terrorist but I also thought that was perhaps justified. Like the article pointed out, none of the media seemed to care that the U.S. was having the terrorists sent to third-world countries to be interogated (tortured).

03-18-2003, 01:13 AM	#26
Henry-Finland Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Finland Posts: 7,018	Yes, but tested on the Administration, what do You think would be the result? (Working like in the original excreationist's OP). Everyone gets life? Or someone gets the chair? Henry

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.