Are all constellations superstitious?

I don't think it's superstition Constellation is not a complete astrology. You can try astrology.

I have some opinions on what the other party said.

First of all, he put forward "1234", which is nothing more than denying the geocentric system that supports astrology, but we should not forget that we live on the earth, and it is natural for astrology to study how celestial bodies affect the earth. What's more, astrology has a school of astrology based on the Heliocentrism system.

Then, he said that constellations are only accidental symbols, and symbols should not be taken seriously. Constellations are really just symbols that people come up with. I have nothing to say about it. However, these astrological symbols, born out of myths, do reflect some psychological consciousness of human beings. There are myths all over the world and they are strikingly similar. I'm a little surprised. He tried to refute astrological symbols, but he never mentioned Carl Jung and the principle of simultaneity.

He said that astrologers believe that the stars decide people's fate, and their positions have changed. This passage reveals that he is a layman and doesn't even understand the basic knowledge of astrology, so let's criticize him. The whole article is about astrology. He doesn't know astrology at all. All he has to do is find an astrological book and read it for an hour or two, and he can reach the present level. Constellations, when divided by astrologers, are different from astronomy.

Twins, known as cosmic twins in astrology, are not only judged by constellations, but also by constellations. Just like two people born in the same place, they may succeed at the same time, but one may be a king and the other may be a farmer, and the farmer may have a bumper harvest. The king may have defeated the enemy. Astrologers don't think that this horoscope represents all of a person, but he does. The time of birth is very clear.

He gave an example to refute astrology, and I can also give an example to prove astrology. He saw examples of refuting astrology and used them. Is this his conclusion? Must that be true? I really want to hear that the experiment at that time was full of prejudice against astrologers, and there seemed to be a lot of doubts about the detailed steps. If he came to the conclusion from his own experiments, he could use any method, but what he copied was used regardless of whether it was rigorous or not.