ABSTRACT
In the Epilogue, I reflect on my position as a scholar on conspiracy culture. Starting from my argument to stay agnostic in this study about the truth of conspiracy theories and neutral in the battles for epistemic authority conspiracy theorists are embroiled in, I ask myself whether such a position makes both theoretical and practical sense. By reflecting on the strategies other sociologists have proposed, I question whether that bracketing sufficiently works in my efforts to maintain autonomous in my analyses of conspiracy culture so that I need to position myself more overtly. I pick up Max Weber’s moral imperative for a value-free sociology through the works of Alvin Gouldner and Howard Becker, and navigate through similar discussions in the social studies of science while doing research on the paranormal world and on scientific controversies. I then advance three scenes—experiences I had during my doctoral research—which illustrate the empirical difficulties of staying neutral already while doing research. To prevent being hijacked by this or that political campaign, deployed by conspiracy theorists or their adversaries, I explicitly formulate my own position in these contentious debates. Instead of taking sides, I explain how I adhere to our most cherished procedure to settle disagreement peacefully—democracy—as a way out.
