Predicting a baby's gender

[naomi24]

I don't quite know how to word this, and I know it's going to sound daft, but when women are pregnant, their friends often dangle a metal necklace or a needle and cotton over the bump to detect the gender of the unborn child. If the item swings back and forth, the baby is deemed to be a boy, if it goes round and round, it's a girl. I can honestly say I can never remember it coming up with the wrong result. It seems like hocus pocus, but since hocus pocus is just that, there must be a logical explanation. Does anyone have any idea what it could be?

[LazyGun]

Heathfield - Just curious really - given your belief in dowsing,are you happy at the thought of dowsing being used for counter terrorist measures, like detecting explosives etc?

http://www.nytimes.co...t/04sensors.html?_r=1
http://blogs.discover...ills-dowsing-edition/

[heathfield]

Well, Lazygun, dowsing is not an exact science - in fact, it's not a science at all. But it's been in use since ancient times and still is. Sceptics remind me of Galileo's experience. His claim that Jupiter had four moons that could be seen through his telescope were dismissed as utter nonsense by Vatican officials. His invitation to have them look through his telescope was turned down - there would be no point in doing so since the moons couldn't possibly exist. For all sceptics, I'll say it again...have someone show you how to do it, and try it for yourself.
As to the link, there will always be claim and counterclaim....

http://psychic-abilit..._used_by_the_military

[LazyGun]

I'll stick to rationality,the science ,and credible reproducible evidence thank you Heathfield, rather than simply conjecture and anecdote.

The plural of anecdote is not data. Galileo offered observable proof, not just unsubstantiated claim.That dowsing works at all is an extraordiinary claim, and as such requires extraordinary proof to substantiate it. Dowsing certainly does not provide any credible proofs in its support.

And linking to an article that makes unsubstantiated claims about possible use of dowsing in WW2, and another alleged example by a colonel duriing the Vietnam? war as proof of dowsing is certainly not proof of anything other than speculation on the authors part - Not even a credible source was cited.

Nor did you answer the question I posed. Hypothetically, assuming you were living and working in Baghdad, would you be confident and happy at your military defenders spending millions on a biologically implausible, irrational, evidence -poor system of detecting explosive devices ( dowsing) to protect you and your loved ones lives?

I know I wouldn't.

[chakka35]

heathfield, how do you explain the fact that anecdotes like yours abound, but no double-blind test has ever produced positive results?
And don't you understand that, like homeopathy, reflexology and so on, if there were positive proof of its efficacy it would have become another routine technological tool? Why would scientists and rational people reject it?

[heathfield]

Well, guys, as an amateur, I wouldn't be happy about trying to detect explosives by dowsing. And being aware of some of the anomalous results that dowsing can throw up, I don't think I'd be happy at relying on others to detect explosives either. But I'd have no qualms about looking for and finding a wedding ring lost in the grass by someone hanging up their washing. Anectodal evidence only? Yes, but why is there so much of it? Let the sceptics refuse to try it for themselves, and let them continue to look upon the whole thing as bunkum. Meantime, those who have the ability will quietly carry on using it.

Find an affiliate group of the British Society of Dowsers local to you. Contact them. Give it a go...

http://www.britishdow...ed_local_groups.shtml

[LazyGun]

Heathfield - So much evidence? where? credible evidence i mean, not just anecdote which might indicate something worth following up but is worthless as evidence. "just trying it" is an irrelevance. Besides which, back in the day ,when i was a credulous student ,I did.

Here is an example of good, double blind, controlled trial of dowsing - care to guess what the outcome was?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAasVXtCOI

Clip on dowsing from "Enemies of Reason" C4 Richard Dawkins

[TTG]

You have more chance of getting it right if you say "It's a girl" to every pregnant woman.

[heathfield]

Don't you find it strange that when dowsers are employed by big businesses and governmental authorities, and find what those bodies are looking for, that this is dismissed as not being in any way evidence that dowsing can work?

http://books.google.c...num=2&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAQ

[LazyGun]

Heathfield - Great, you have found a book from a dowser, about dowsing,wanting to sell his book, making claims that cannot be independantly verified - and you thnk this is evidence? Wow, as a prosecutor, I would love to have you in the jury if this constitutes what you think is reasonable and reliable evidence.

Companies are not impersonal monoliths, except on the surface - they are staffed by humans, and just because one or 2 credulous humans in various HR departments have hired a dowser because they heard that dowsing works ( anecdotal evidence) does not prove the validity of dowsing.

In all the proper controlled trials, dowsiing has been demonstrated to be no better than chance. Here is a other controlled trial - quality is not great, but you get the point

[LazyGun]

oops missed off the video link - this is from the James Randi show, some years ago. Note, once again a controlled, blinded trial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RtJ0yJL4tg

[heathfield]

My main problem with your argument, Lazygun, is that since 1964, when I first tried it, I've been able to dowse for things for myself. At the risk of becoming over-repetetive, I'll say it one more time - try it for yourself. You may be surprised to find that it actually works for you - I certainly was.
As to 'finding a book' and insubstantiated reports...Come on! Do you think that those companies minutes, and governmental and military reports, will contain no record whatsoever of the successful work carried out by dowsers? Unsubstantiated? I think not. Rather more a problem of information retreival.
Try...it...for...yourself.

[LazyGun]

Heathfield – I was originally moved to comment in this thread at all because of your initial comment in the thread. You asserted the following.
Dowsing works, based upon personal experience. - But this does not count as proof or reliable evidence.! It is anecdotal and unsupported, and could, without trying to cause offence, just be lies or misremembered events. It cannot be regarded as reliable evidence.
You made several unsupported claims regarding the use of dowsing by major organisations as routine procedure. This ,again, is just your personal opinion, based upon belief, anecdote, and some unsupported claims in articles that uncritically favour dowsing! How can anyone count this as evidence? Give me some real statements from existing utility companies stating routine and current use of dowsers, and more importantly, documentary evidence in support of their abilities – but you cannot.
Then you claim “so many successes with the method” – but yet again, you fail to provide anything resembling evidence in support – just anecdote. In response, I offer you just 2 examples of controlled trials, where it is graphically demonstrated that dowsing was no better than random guesswork. Where is your controlled evidence supporting dowsing? Oh that's right, nowhere – because none exists.
In your initial post, you suggested that dowsing is not accepted since it cannot be “scientifically proven” - Well, why can't it be scientifically proven, if it is as effective and reliable as you claim? And whats with trying to equate a process, such as dowsing, with an emotional state, such as love? A nonsense argument.

Dowsing is just a pre-scientific age hangover superstition offering a success rate no better than random chance, with no plausible mechanism to explain it. To attempt to claim otherwise without evidence is absurd.

[heathfield]

I've no problem, Lazygun. Eminent scientists have puzzled for many years over a means of obtaining scientific proof for dowsing and failed. Our local library used to have a copy of a heavy UK government report on trials carried out in the late '40s. It showed that there might,repeat might, be some magnetic boundaries running parallel to underground streams. Otherwise, this still couldn't explain dowsing on non-magnetic materials, and effectively they didn't find anything. (Sorry, this is anectodal. Obviously, my own experiences aren't anecdotal to me!). You've made your mind up, and that's fine by me. Meanwhile, I and others, will just happily carry on dowsing.
Can't understand why you won't just look through that telescope, and Try It Yourself!