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..
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.
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...
./M6