Re: Sorry, but I think the idea

I think you have to be careful to separate what the article says from what the introductory website proposes.

It may sound far-fetched, and it's certainly dangerous to play fast and loose with something that could be so socially volatile, but consider the basis of it.  Probably the best example is the lie detector, where it is something that has a poor scientific basis and yet is pervasive in usage where it may do considerably more harm than good.  It serves as a good illustration of how a seemingly reasonable idea can get out of control.

However, we also have to consider the work of people like Paul Ekman, that have established a reasonable basis for arguing that our facial muscles and emotions are difficult to control when we are lying.  Therefore, even if there are dozens of subtleties involved, there seems to be a scientific reason to suggest that our ability to deceive (hide our true intentions) can potentially be detected through external means.

Even according to someone like Ekman, this is hardly a fully objective process since one would have to have established a baseline of behavior and expressions, but it lends some credence to the idea.  Therefore, it is plausible (regardless of how unlikely), that similarly expressions may be capable of analysis for those that harbor inappropriate thoughts towards children.

My biggest concern, isn't that this is possible, but much like deception, that it is simply too varied to provide a reliable means of predicting anything.  As such, it is capable of being abused, and be utilized as a pseudoscience, rather than as something that might actually be scientifically correct.

There's no question, that the scientific question is simple compared to the social/political consequences of its misuse.  However, the two should not be confused.