Abstract
Matthew Shields (2022) argues that “generalists” regarding conspiracy theories make a mistake: they focus uncritically on what he calls “Non-Dominant Institution Conspiracy Theories” (Non-DITs). He argues that generalists should include “Dominant Institution Conspiracy Theories” (DITs) as paradigmatic cases of conspiracy theories because they are by their own lights the clearest representatives of their views. In my response, I argue that Shields’s conclusion does not necessarily follow. Before we can answer the question of whether generalists should include DITs as paradigmatic cases of conspiracy theories, we need to clarify what conceptual project generalists are pursuing. I argue that the inclusion of DITs depends on the conceptual project one pursues and that the inclusion of DITs makes sense for some projects but not for others. Furthermore, I argue that the difference between DITs and Non-DITs may not be as stark as Shields suggests if we distinguish between the producers and the recipients of conspiracy theories.