Natural Language Processing (NLP) is a scientific area that I'm very interested in. NLP per se is vague, since it embraces specific areas such as automatic translation, speech recognition, syntax processing, etc..
Given my interest in this area, I was thrilled when a friend pointed me a /. discussion about Charlantry in forensic speech science.
Professors Eriksson and Lacerda have proven scientifically that the so called "lie detectors", based on voice stress analysis and psychological stress evaluation, are really a lie by them selves.
The article can currently be found here, it has been published in the International Journal of Speech Language and the Law in 2007, and is currently giving lots of headaches to both the lie detector vendors and the professors.
I find this discussion most interesting because science must always be serious, unfortunately sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is just used as a basis to give credibility to something that is not credible or reliable.
We are all used to see marketing claims about software that uses "cutting edge" algorithms and techniques that no one knows about because the software vendor keeps the "cutting edge" stuff all for itself.
I wonder how "cutting edge" some of those algorithms and techniques really are...
Posts
