I excel at mockery? Sweet.
So when a CT'er accuses people of being sheep they are not mocking?
I don't think you fully understand what a skeptic approach is. Here's a easy about it:
Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.
Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.
The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum — I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think:
Sum Ergo Cogito —
I Am Therefore I Think.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ___________________
Here's another list or group of assertions about CT's:
“Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence”
“Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact”
“Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions... Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators”
“Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators”
“Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning”
“Appeals to ‘common sense’”
“Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies”
“Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review”
“Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of [the] relevant science... Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities. At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.”
“Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative”
“The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody... The conspiracy centers on the ‘usual suspects’”
