Originally Posted by miller-time
Here is the problem. You let your philosophical enquiry die at the birth of the 20th century. Read Karl Popper and then you will understand the difference between skepticism and the popular conspiracy theory method.
Skepticism is not about asking unwarranted questions, it is about questioning a claim. Conspiracy theorists make claims, they don't ask questions, they take random data points and find a pattern, and based on some correlation they make an assertion. That isn't science and it isn't skepticism.
I know Popper; explain to me what is it in his method that is far superior to skepticism. As far as I am concern, Popper is only reiterating what skeptics have already known: even full proof facts and ideas can be disproven since everything starts with a theory, so objectivity in and of itself is a wrong premise, and if you truly understand Popper (which I highly doubt), you would admit he would support the position of a conspiracy hypothetical than accepting the "objective" reports of the media and law enforcement. Your position is the exact contradiction to his philosophy of falsification.
This is the premise that you idiots (especially Nathanjizzle) are upholding based on a fallacious premise that appeals to emotions (we shouldn't even question because there are kids involved and it is not moral do so).
Conspiracy theory is just that: a theory. They don't make claims; they create hypotheticals and ask questions. It is the media that makes claims. A good conspiracy theory would only question these claims and not come to their own conclusions.
Keep in mind, I am aware of the fact there are bad conspiracy theories, but there are also good ones that don't claim to know anything other than to point out the discrepancies from the claims of the government, news media, etc.