Oddbean new post about login | logout You're excluding a major component of the process: hypothesis. Step 1) observe a phenomenon Step 2) form a hypothesis about the phenomenon Step 3) design a repeatable and falsifiable experiment to confirm your theory Step 4) tell people about your findings This process is exactly the same as superstition formation sans the "repeatable and falsifiable" part. Much science is based on statistical analysis, this is the experiment. Correlation does not prove causation, therefore most hypotheses are just wild ass guesses. No different than a rain dance.
I don't think I included or excluded anything. My point is science is a method or process. Superstition is not. It is belief or faith, but without the methodical processes. My mother's family hailed from SW Mississippi and Louisiana, believing many hoodoo practices and traditions. Some involved process, but most was hearsay.
Superstition follows the same process as the scientific method
Just because you say something doesn't make it true.
No need to talk to me like a woman. If you look past your science religion, you will see why so much science is bunk.
Most superstitions are a dysfunctional form of science
Isn't that exactly what I said?
Logically? No, it isn't.
You show very little understanding of statistics as NO data scientist or scientist uses correlation. In fact so many statistical methods were developed to get beyond the human desire to accept correlation superstitiously. You also show little understanding of reasoning. I see why you think what you think now.
You're missing the point. The weakness isn't in data analysis, its the reasoning process itself that is superstitutious. I'm not suggesting there is a better process, but we shouldn't be blind to the problem. To attribute a hypothesis to an observation, then collect data and develop experiments to reinforce that line of thinking, is no different than superstitution development. The only difference is rigor.
The data analysis is the point. Your own statements show you're starting from assumptive logic and therefore faulty reasoning. You are literally using faulty reasoning to say scientific reasoning is faulty. My example: "To attribute a hypothesis to an observation, then collect data and develop experiments to reinforce that line of thinking," This is exactly what the methods are developed to avoid! This is not to address corruption, which does exist. In those cases they look to reinforce.