27th June 2009, 3:57 PM
Mythbusters is not the most rigorous scientific process. They're interesting to watch but don't let them be your "proof" of anything, just enough to get you to ask questions.
Here's the thing. If you're not guilty but afraid the machine is going to say you're lying, you will STILL be shown as lying.
The reality is, if you're being questioned, there's a good chance you're going to be afraid they'll think you're guilty, even if you're innocent. An innocent person DOES in fact have something to fear, wrongful incarceration.
Mythbusters is far better at testing direct stuff like "can you blow up a cement mixer" than stuff that can be easily influenced by their expectations, like if a lie detector works. That's where a proper double blind procedure is absolutely key.
Here's the thing. If you're not guilty but afraid the machine is going to say you're lying, you will STILL be shown as lying.
The reality is, if you're being questioned, there's a good chance you're going to be afraid they'll think you're guilty, even if you're innocent. An innocent person DOES in fact have something to fear, wrongful incarceration.
Mythbusters is far better at testing direct stuff like "can you blow up a cement mixer" than stuff that can be easily influenced by their expectations, like if a lie detector works. That's where a proper double blind procedure is absolutely key.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)