So the terms aeromancy and meteorology are very similar but aeromancy is considered a superstition by the Church and meteorology is not, correct?
So if I were to explain this to someone, would an answer like this one I found in New Advent be accurate?:
Human instinct demanded a stronger foundation and found it in the belief in an intervention of some supernatural agency. Reason demands the same. A corporeal sign is either an effect of the same cause of which it is a sign, as smoke of fire, or it proceeds from the same cause as the effect which it signifies as the falling of the barometer foretells rain, i.e., the change in the instrument and the change in the weather come from the same cause. Man’s future actions and signs in nature stand in no such relation. The sign is not an effect of his future act; neither do the sign and his act proceed from the same cause. The other kinds of signs from the living creatures can be passed over by almost the same reasoning.
So basically, could I say that since meteorology comes from science and is determined by cause and effect it is a use of human logic and reason, not superstition?