structural:expansion
Contemporary use

Definitions of the term vary, but they commonly describe superstitions as irrational beliefs at odds with scientific knowledge of the world. Stuart Vyse proposes that a superstition's "presumed mechanism of action is inconsistent with our understanding of the physical world", with Jane Risen adding that these beliefs are not merely scientifically wrong but impossible. Similarly, Lysann Damisch defines superstition as "irrational beliefs that an object, action, or circumstance that is not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome." Dale Martin says they "presuppose an erroneous understanding about cause and effect, that have been rejected by modern science." The Oxford English Dictionary describes them as "irrational, unfounded", Merriam-Webster as "a false conception about causation or belief or practice", and the Cambridge Dictionary as "sans grounding in human reason or scientific knowledge". This notion of superstitious practices is not causally related to the outcomes.

Both Vyse and Martin argue that what is considered superstitious varies across cultures and time. For Vyse, "if a culture has not yet adopted science as its standard, then what we consider magic or superstition is more accurately the local science or religion." Dale points out that superstitions are often considered out of place in modern times and are influenced by modern science and its notions of what is rational or irrational, surviving as remnants of older popular beliefs and practices.

Vyse proposes that in addition to being irrational and culturally dependent, superstitions have to be instrumental; an actual effect is expected by the person holding a belief, such as increased odds of winning a prize. This distinction excludes practices where participants merely expect to be entertained.