I agree that this article is overly simplistic and biased in a few common ways. Firstly, 'conspiracy' is literally a crime - people are charged with conspiracy every day. There is absolutely nothing about conspiracy that is 'woo woo' or leftfield. Theories are a concept that is absolutely part of the scientific method. So given these two solid facts, it should be obvious to anyone with an open mind and heart that theories about conspiracies can themselves be 100% scientific. What do police do? One part of their role is to examine evidence of conspiracies and assess the possibilities. In fact, the judicial system also effectively deals with conspiracy theory all day long. Police can be described as professional conspiracy theorists and it is only the negative connotation that has been attached to the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' that has people associating the idea primarily with nonsense instead of accurate application of science.

Having both a background in science and having had experience in numerous industries at many levels, I have seen numerous real life conspiracies. Let's remember again here that a conspiracy is literally only an agreement, that is hidden from plain view, to do something criminal. It should be abundantly clear that this occurs all day long around the world.

A scientific mind has question, doubts, and curiosity while a conspiracy mind has all the answers.

This is false. What is a 'conspiracy mind'? Is a police officer who is professionally identifying conspiracy someone who has a 'conspiracy mind'? Does a 'conspiracy mind' only think about conspiracies? Are thoughts about conspiracies mutually exclusive with the rigour of the scientific method? In truth, conspiracies can be and are often assessed to a high standard and are indeed eventually proven to be real conspiracies. This should be obvious but apparently it needs to be spelled out.

Psychology and neurobiology are behind everything and I so wish and hope that people will soon realize that knowing yourself is the biggest knowledge one can have.

In knowing yourself, you can come to know the extent of your own denial and also the extent you have towards bias. You can also come to know the extent to which such things can even play out in published scientific work.

Psychology sees no problem in having doubts or critical thinking, on the contrary, those things are encouraged. When a person starts talking about certain people controlling things, lizard people in power or some scary people meeting in secret to control the world than the fun stuff happens. Paranoia is what sets conspiracy apart from normal questioning and doubting.

I see, so to you, critical thinking and questioning things is rational and not paranoid, but if the result of that leads you to think in certain ways that you yourself don't agree with, then it is likely paranoia? What research have you done into the possibility of small groups of people meeting in secret to control the world? You mentioned that you leave car mechanics to the 'experts' - but what about the experts who study the activity of the world's most 'powerful' people? Do you allow them the same privilege? Or do you label them crazy?

As was already mentioned @thecorbettreport has put out many great and well researched pieces on conspiracies that really are better sourced than 99% of what passes for journalism and even some scientific studies. You will find among his work, months and months worth of evidence and testimony relating to numerous conspiracies and I challenge you to pull them apart, more than just a tiny chink here and there. For reference, you can also review my whistleblower series on Steem that contains over 30 testimonies, often from professionals and highly qualified and relied upon people in society - which show a vastly different reality to the one being portrayed by so called 'rational' thinkers who are the mainstay of mainstream thinking (this is the last post in that series, the rest are in the index at the bottom). 'Strangely', these whistleblowers are almost never heard in the mainstream. Perhaps Professor Udo Ulfkotte's testimony that as the editor of one of Germany's largest newspapers, he was under the pay of the CIA to lie about America has something to do with it? Perhaps his statement that pretty much every other ranking journalist was also under their pay has something to do with it? Perhaps his death soon after is irrelevant?

I specifically recommend looking at the work of ivy league historian Carroll Quigley, since it is he who was perhaps best placed to expose the real 'network' of wealthy people who literally have billions if not trillions of funds available to them and whose aim was to make anglo saxon men the rulers of the world. Carroll Quigley was a leading and highly respected academic historian who was privately tasked with recording the history of a highly secret society, but he actually published their records publicly, only for them to be removed from publication within 9 months (by penguin books). The work is mostly dry and historic, except that 5% of it is explosive in it's description of the way that democracy has been deliberately designed to be 100% fake and to ensure that most power in society is retained by a very small number of people. Anyone who wants to rebut this has a lot of work on their hands. You can review an introduction to his work here.