The Fallacy of Seeing Patterns
The article starts with, &quot;Human beings try to find patterns to explain the reason behind almost every phenomenon, but that doesn’t mean that there is a pattern to rely on.&quot;  The second part of the sentence is true, on further observation some patterns prove not to be patterns.  However the first half, the attempt to explain <i>why</i> we &quot;find patterns&quot; isn&#x27;t convincing.<p>Instead, replace that phrase with this: &quot;based on brain construction, we humans are predisposed to find patterns in data we encounter&quot;.  This idea holds up to evolutionary scrutiny, organisms have mechanisms biased for self-protection and finding food and other resources through various forms of pattern recognition. IOW we find patterns we&#x27;re neurologically capable of finding, particularly in regard to survival and reproduction.<p>Perhaps it&#x27;s more accurate to assert we &quot;find patterns&quot; useful in making predictions about our present and future state within the environments we occupy.  The fact that patterns may not turn out to be authentic is simply part of a process of refinement of pattern-seeking and improving value as predictors of future states.  We may call a pattern an &quot;explanation&quot; but nothing is actually &quot;explained&quot; as shown by the fact we reserve the right to enhance or revise the &quot;pattern&quot;, or what we insist it predicts, at any given time.<p>Edits: grammar and clarity