Correct. It is glorified statistics and advanced (not really all that advanced) mathematics. It may be other things as well but what it most definitely is not is machines learning since that term is composed of two words that when combined in that order result in a thing which is a logical contradiction and logically impossible. To put it as simply as possible if a machine could learn it would no longer be a machine. Only of a (mostly) whole human person (and some non human animals) with a (mostly) fully functional nervous system can we say it is capable of learning.
Machine learning proponents have dug their own hole by insisting on calling something which is arguably only slightly more interesting than any other form of modern computing by a term which cannot apply to it. Logically cannot apply to it. Now they are stuck in the same trap the neuroscientists fell into when they began assigning cognitive states to the brain that can only logically be said of (mostly) whole human persons with (mostly) fully functioning nervous systems. This was dubbed the mereological fallacy by M.R. Bennett and P.M.S. Hacker. I have dubbed the analogous situation which now ensnares machine learning and also (partly) AI the compulogical fallacy.
Also, data science is not science but don’t even get me started on that. lol!