Conspiracy Theory - Science or Religion?

Science has proven itself more useful than faith because it relies on empiricism- nothing can be known unless there is sufficient evidence to prove it to be so.  Now, take conspiracy theories, which rely on facts.  Sure, the facts may be wrong, skewed, exaggerated, misinterpreted, but most of them are based on some part of history, some bizarre corner of human civilization that seems odd or unbelievable to most people. 

Events in the past are not as empirical or testable as hard science, so some history is taken on faith.  Look at a history book, and you have descriptions of events we believe to be true based on historical research, forming the most likely explanation.  Of course there are always anomalies, quirks, and oddities that history books fail to mention.  For some reason, mentioning these oddities becomes incongruous with the currently accepted view in education, thus conspiracy theories are merely a collection of bizarre, odd, and hard to believe data. 

The number of presidents and politicians involved in Freemasonry, Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones?  Don't worry about it.  The coincidences and conflicts of interest surrounding 9/11?  Who cares.  The Holocaust?  Just accept what you're told.    UFOs?  Don't touch the subject.  Of course belief plays a part, just as historians believe their view of history.  But does keeping pleasant facts and ignoring oddities make mainstream history any more truthful?  

Is a collection of unpleasant facts unscientific?

Science - Empiricism.

REAL Science - Rationalism.

Sorry, i had to answer your ''because it relies on empiricism''.

Well, empiricism isn't a correct way to view the world, I'd say.

For example. Hume said:

''Even if everytime you dropped a rock, it fell on the floor, you don't know if next time it will rise to the ceiling''.

This is the basis of Empiricism, basicly. But there is a little problem:

Physics can actually prove you that a rock will ALWAYS fall whenever you drop it, due to gravity, and they can prove it mathematicly, without having to drop one. This kind of science is effective, because the only way you can prove it wrong, is by telling the other what is WRONG in the theory.

Otherwise, in empiricism (or experimentalism) you can simply prove someone wrong by trying again, and having different results. Why? Nobody knows.

So, are we smarter now for that? Not really.

I think this way: It's more important to know how a car in fact works, than how you drive it''.

In empiricism, you are interested in knowing how you drive it. You just need to know that.

In rationalism, you can't drive the car without actually knowing how it works. You have to know what you're talking about in a deep way.

This is why I don't like Chemistry\Medicine\Biology and even Genetics (which is a ''science'' based on probabilities, which is a part of mathematics that I find disgusting, due to its innacuracy). I pretend to follow Physics, lol.

Anyway yeah, history has actually covered maaaaaany facts. Most of them really important. By the way, Freemasonry isn't and never was negative to history, and they always wanted to stay covered. They have (and had) many enemies.

About Conspiracy Theories. Some can be dumbshit, some others not. We do never know. But they are always interesting to ear. There is always something to learn from them. But no one is capable to prove them, that's the problem.