Friday the 13th has arrived, bringing a sense of unease for those with “triskaidekaphobia.” As college football fans gear up for a major game day tomorrow, many will indulge in their own superstitions—wearing special socks, putting on lucky jerseys, and performing various rituals in hopes of boosting their team’s chances.
David Kling, a professor at the University of Miami’s Department of Religious Studies, commented on the widespread nature of superstitions. He mentioned that practices are abundant in sports, citing cases such as baseball players’ routines and Michael Jordan’s habit of wearing his UNC shorts under his NBA uniform throughout his basketball career. He also pointed out that hockey players often refrain from shaving during playoffs, as long as their team continues to win.
Kling highlighted that superstitions exist in various aspects of life, even among those who might deny any belief in them. Superstitions are defined as unfounded beliefs or practices regarded as valid, often influenced by situations of high stakes, uncertainty, lack of control, and stress. The anticipation of supernatural outcomes from one’s actions is a core element of superstition, whether labeled as karma or divine justice—suggesting an unseen influence over our lives.
According to Kling, research shows that superstitious behavior often surfaces when individuals feel the stakes are high and outside factors are beyond their control, reinforcing that these beliefs arise from a human instinct to manage feelings of helplessness or anxiety.
Despite knowing their ungrounded nature, many still cling to superstitions. Kling shared the anecdote of Nobel laureate Niels Bohr, who while being a scientist, kept a horseshoe over his desk. When questioned about its significance, Bohr quipped that while he did not believe in luck, he had been told that a horseshoe attracts it regardless of one’s belief.
Catherine Newell, an associate professor in the same department, addressed the intersection of modern science and superstitions through the lens of “falsifiability.” She referenced philosopher Karl Popper, known for outlining what distinguishes true science from pseudoscience. Popper argued that a primary criterion for scientific validity is the ability to refute conclusions derived from scientific inquiry.
Newell pointed out that in terms of superstitions, a key question remains whether specific actions can be disproven. This distinction raises dilemmas regarding the effectiveness of actions intended to affect outcomes, such as wearing lucky socks or engaging in pre-game rituals, leaving it unclear if such practices genuinely influence results.