ABSTRACT This article addresses the question, ‘Should scholars debunk conspiracy theories or stay neutral?’ It describes ‘conspiracy theories’ and two senses of ‘neutrality,’ arguing that scholars should be neutral in the sense of being fair and openminded. While that does not exclude the possibility of debunking, it does mean that the motive should be to assess rather than to debunk. This article also responds to a particular group of social scientists who have argued that conspiracy theories are ‘unhealthy,’ and suggests that their perspective may be reasonably representative of social scientists working on conspiracy theories. Maintaining that the arguments given for pathologizing conspiracy theorists are poor ones, it suggests that social scientists have not shown a tendency to treat conspiracy theories reasonably or fairly, and further suggests that they are therefore unlikely to be helpful in assessing conspiracy theories unless they reform their attitude. Greater appreciation for the philosophical literature on this issue may help social scientists come to appreciate that conspiracy theories ought to be evaluated on their particular merits, not pathologized and dismissed as generally unhealthy.

中文翻译：

---

学术界应该揭穿阴谋论吗？

摘要 本文解决了这样一个问题：“学者应该揭穿阴谋论还是保持中立？” 它描述了“阴谋论”和“中立”的两种含义，认为学者应该在公平和开放的意义上保持中立。虽然这并不排除揭穿的可能性，但这确实意味着动机应该是评估而不是揭穿。本文还回应了一群特定的社会科学家，他们认为阴谋论是“不健康的”，并表明他们的观点可能合理地代表研究阴谋论的社会科学家。坚持认为将阴谋论者病态化的论点是糟糕的论点，这表明社会科学家没有表现出合理或公平对待阴谋论的倾向，并进一步表明，除非他们改变态度，否则他们不太可能有助于评估阴谋论。对关于这个问题的哲学文献的更多理解可能有助于社会科学家开始认识到阴谋论应该根据其特定的优点进行评估，而不是病态化和普遍不健康而被驳回。