Stephen Black wrote:
> Being by nature a suspicious man, that's not good enough. Too much
> wiggle room, tweaking of parameters, whatever. The data should be
> coded, then fed into their machine by someone who doesn't know what's
> what, the data read out, decision reached, and only _then_ should the
> code be broken. Just because a machine does it doesn't absolve them
> of the requirement for double-blind assessment. Not if they want to
> convince me, anyway.
Argh - I hate to be defending what will very probably turn out to be utter
quackery, but... <grin>
As I'm reading that article, the decision _is_ reached independently of the
researchers' knowledge of the expected decision. That is, the algorithm puts out a
present/absent decision, not something like a waveform that needs to be interpreted to
come to that decision (which would, of course, lead strongly to the "seeing what you
expect to see" conclusion).
Now, of course it's still possible that the _input_ to the algorithm has been
"tweaked" to give the expected results. But if that's the case, I think it's clearly
not just accidental "seeing what one expects to see", but outright intentional fraud.
If we're willing to be that suspicious, then I think there's no point in even reading
the paper or the website: even if he claimed to have done a fully blinded study we
might respond that he's simply lying about that.
But then, a site that touts "a new paradigm" is going to raise suspicions.
Worse, take a look at this comment (under FAQ) on the site:
----------------------
Q. Who have been the detractors and opponents of Brain Fingerprinting technology?
DR. FARWELL: The Brain Fingerprinting system is a powerful technology for discovering
the truth. The people who do not want the truth to come out have been the major
detractors and opponents of the technique. Generally, these fall into several groups:
Criminals, particularly in organized crime, have been opposed to the technique for
obvious reasons; some individuals in the government have a vested interest in hiding
the truth, and these people also have opposed Brain Fingerprinting technology, mostly
behind the scenes; the polygraph industry has expended time, energy, and money - much
of it taxpayers' money - attempting to prevent the truth about Brain Fingerprinting
technology from coming out; government bureaucrats whose jobs depend on the polygraph
industry and scientists who are funded by the polygraph industry also have opposed
Brain Fingerprinting technology.
When someone comes out in opposition to Brain Fingerprinting technology, you have to
consider the source. If it's someone with ties to organized crime, government
officials with something to hide, or the polygraph industry, their stance is
predictable and self-serving. Opinions by so-called experts, who have never conducted
or published research on Brain Fingerprinting technology, or any kind of brain-wave
research, are meaningless.
----------------------
You don't have to be naturally suspicious to have your warning bells go off
while reading that. Whew. Oops.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
