asdf

The end of science.
All lies, damned Lies.

I recently came across this quote.

Science is the only truth and it is the great lie. It knows nothing, and people think it knows everything. It is misrepresented. People think that science is electricity, automobilism, and dirigible balloons. It is something very different. It is life devouring itself. It is the sensibility transformed into intelligence. It is the need to know stifling the need to live. It is the genius of knowledge vivisecting the vital genius.
Rémy De Gourmont (1858–1915), French critic, novelist. repr. In Selected Writings, ed. and trans. by Glen S. Burne (1966). “Art and Science,” Promenades Philosophiques (1905-1909).

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a group of scientists over lunch at the Mexican Restaurant. I personally feel that Mexican food is too fatty and filled with too many carbohydrates to allow for deep philosophical thought, but my colleagues keep going back like cows to the farmer.

We were talking about the end of science. A friend of mine believes that science has asked all of the meaningful questions that it will ever be able to ask, and that scientists are now engaged in the process of delineating the minutia of the world. Like the Fibanachi spiral devouring itself, this process would never end, but become smaller and more meaningless the farther it progressed...each moment slipping closer to some essential truth, but never quite attaining it.

Is he right? I don't know. I tend to believe in science as a useful tool, but only one tool in our arsenal of understanding the universe. It seems as if the scientific method provides a magnifying glass that brings some objects into relentless relief, while ultimately obscuring others.

Drew* believes that we as human lack the brain power to understand the nature of our reality. I agree with him. Yet his stance is that we have reached the edge of that power, of that philosophy, and he is depressed. I don't believe that we have reached the edge of our understanding, and even if I did this would not upset me. However, I will be thunderously upset the day we understand our world completely.

Can you imagine that day? What would be the worst words the guy (or gal) who ultimately understands the full grandeur of our reality could say?

"Dude, twelve seconds left."
"That's it?"
"You're kidding me, only Moonies get into heaven?"
"Dan Quayle is God?"
"It was all a lie."

Some how, our intellectual inability to discover the nature of our reality has always been a comfort to me.



*Some names have been changed. Not this name of course, but some other names.

Deceptive Behavior Within the Bounds of Lawful Society:
Diogenes, the Dog who would not be Man

It is common in the textbooks of Polygraphy to see a quote about Diogenes of Sinope also known in his lifetime as Diogenes the Cynic. He was a Greek philosopher who searched Athens for an honest man. It was said that he never found one. In artwork postdating his life, he was often depicted carrying a lantern, in a frayed cloak, and followed by a dog. The famous quote about his noble search for truth goes something like this…

“…Because, I'm looking for a man!!!
There are a lot of people around us, thousands! A lot of people!
But not a man! The one! The one who puts above himself the others!
THE UNKNOWN ONE!!!
Then, Diogenes walked through Athens in broad daylight carrying a lighted lamp, saying that he was looking for a man! An honest man!!”
Diogenes Laertius (no relation)

It is a good quote and a good anecdote. It illustrates Diogenes’ contempt for the artificiality of society as well as the futility of his search. It is the futility of that search that authors emphasize, a search through the polluted ranks of a society’s corruption. However, within the lens of polygraphy, the decision to reference Diogenes is strange, because in contraposition to his quest for truth, polygraphers search for deception within a large population of truth. Where Diogenes’ search for truth was so difficult it was doomed to failure, the polygrapher’s search for deception is merely fiendishly challenging. In fact, the high ratio of truth to deception in screening tests is…irritating in the signal detection sense of the thing.

The polygrapher’s job is to the benefit of society, whereupon by his own words, Diogenes opposed society and its ideals. Diogenes was the most famous practitioner of a philosophical group known as the Cynics. Some historians even go so far as to call him the founder of the group, although that honor may also go to his teacher Antisthenes. One may hasten to say that the group was labeled on the basis of their belief that most people are motivated by selfishness; however, the word cynic did not have the same meaning in Greek as it does in English. In Greek, the word cynic means dog. As it so happens, “Dog” was Diogenes’ nickname. It was most likely given to him as the result of an unpleasant incident in Athens. Members of the upper class at a dinner party teased him by throwing bones at him as they would a dog. By way of comeuppance, he behaved as a dog would – and urinated on them.

At first glance this unpleasant scatological retort would border on obscene, but based on his philosophical beliefs it was not only appropriate, but required. He eschewed society’s false ideals, and therefore needed to express utter contempt. And scatologically speaking, that was utter contempt. Aristotle referred to him as “The Dog” in works of the period, and he seems to have accepted it. His opposition to society’s contrived rules was extreme, but not long lasting. He ended his life as a children’s tutor. Eventually, he succumbed to the very artificiality he once opposed.

I suppose that if any lesson can be garnered from the tale of Diogenes, it is that truth without deception is truly nonexistent. Diogenes’ lamp could not illuminate the truth, because he was searching for light in broad daylight. If he wanted to find the truth, he would have needed to carry the lamp in darkness. I suppose people quote him, because of his Greek lineage, and the easily remembered story. I’m not sure Diogenes’ every thought was, in fact, rife with metaphysical importance and intuitive understanding of the human condition, but what do you want -- Plato every day? Even Plato’s students felt he could go on a bit. But I digress, if Diogenes of Sinope had been known by another name, let’s say Frank of Chicago, and let’s say that Frank lived in a tub, urinated on guests at a fancy dinner party, and begged for his food: I assure you he would have been called something, but it wouldn’t be “philosopher” or even “Cynic”.

Not all philosophers shared the Cynicsism of Diogenes.

"Now I believe I can hear the philosophers protesting that it can only be misery to live in folly, illusion, deception and ignorance, but it isn’t—it’s human.**

Desiderius Erasmus

Another philosopher also shared some thoughts on deception. He predated Diogenes by about 100 years, and I assure you his thoughts on deception were not so pretty as Diogenes’. Nonetheless, if we look behind the words to their intent, we’ll find something much more interesting than the thoughts of the Cynic. I think I’ll call this fellow, “The Realist”.

"Warfare is the Way of deception. Therefore, if able, appear unable, if active, appear not active, if near, appear far, if far, appear near."
Sun-Tzu

I do not esteem these words because they teach of war. I suppose esteem them, because one of Sun-Tzu central tenants of war was that it was far better to win a war by NOT FIGHTING AT ALL. The goal of winning war was to increase the Tau of the ruler, and the better the Tau of the ruler the better the life of the people. In other words, the goal of his deceptions was for the good of society. You may agree with Sun-Tzu or you may disagree with him, but you can’t ignore his understanding of human nature.

_________________________

*Sun-Tzu. Art of War. (R. D. Sawyer, Trans.). Boulder: Westview Press. (Original work unpublished).

** Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466–1536), Dutch humanist. Praise of Folly, ch. 32 (1509).

I always wondered what it was that bothered me about the comparison question presented during some forms of polygraph testing, and I've think I've got it. The comparison question or probable lie question is a question to which an examinee will most likely lie. The probable lie question is different from the directed lie question in that an examinee feels as if he/she must pass this question to pass the examination. During the pre-test interview the question is presented and refined until the examinee feels compelled to be deceptive. Many researchers believe that comparison question draws the innocent examinee's attention away from the relevant questions towards the comparison questions and therefore increases his/her arousal level.

However, I think that direction of attention is not really driving mechanism behind the arousal changes associated with comparison questions. The examinee's decision to lie is based not on a free choice but on a Hobson's choice*. Essentially, this question backs an examinee into a corner in no alternatives beside deception exist. The lack of alternatives or 'escapes' may very well be the true mechanism of arousal level.

*Hobson's choice: an apparently free choice that offers no real alternative, named after an English Livery Stable Keeper who demanded that his guests take the horse nearest the stable's door or none at all.

On the issue of the "anticlimax dampening concept", allow me to say that this was not an idea birthed in the fertile depths of psychology. The concept, proposed by Cleve Backster, suggests that a person's fears will be directed towards the situation that holds the greatest threat to that person's well-being. Back in my memory I seem to remember mention of Cleve Backster using an example in which a person on a high dive with a fear of heights could be cured by being set on fire, because their attention would be directed towards the greatest threat--being on fire. I have not tested this particular example out (as I've only been severly burned once and I did not have the foresight to seek out a highdive) but I would argue that for a person on fire, it may be the extreme pain of being burned alive that redirects one's fear away from heights. In general, the only thing I've noticed being afraid of while in intense pain is the potential of experiencing yet MORE intense pain. The next time I'm on a high-dive board I shall set my self on fire and test this idea out. Don't hold your breath though, I'm afraid of heights and I never plan to be on a highdive. On the other in order to overcome that fear, perhaps I should set myself on fire BEFORE climbing the highdive...

Over the last week or so I've been reading material about polygraphy provided by active researchers. I have found that I understand many of the terms in a subtly different way than they are used in the literature, and so I have found myself cross-refencing several books in the interest of basic comprehension. Probably, one of the best references for a neophyte is the "Terminology Reference for the Science of Psychophysiologocial Detection of Deception". It is available through the American Polygraph Association. The guide is presented in alphabetical order rather than by topic, and includes an array of terms diverse enough to enlighten even experienced forensic psychophysiologists. It was published in 1997, but I understand it is about to undergo revision. As the authors suggest, the field of psychophysiological detection of deception is in the middle of a remarkable transition. This transition encompasses the reconciling of antiquated polygraphy terms with their scientific equivalents as well as new research developments within the field. A guide such as this one allows the consumers of polygraph literature to navigate through the sometimes dizzying mountain pathways of terminology to a plateau of comprehension.