On November 21-23, the Knowledge Resistance-project hosted its final conference. The three-day event featured talks by international scholars from the fields of philosophy, psychology, political science and media- and communication research. Below follows a series of recorded talks. The full program can be found below.
Philosophy talks
Maria Baghramian – Knowledge Resistance, Trust, and Rationality
All knowledge resistance is not irrational. Through an exploration of the concept of knowledge resistance, Maria Baghramian situates the concept in both individual as well as broader societal and political contexts. In dysfunctional epistemic environments such as under dictatorships, the quality of information risk being compromised. In such circumstances, individuals may prioritize intellectual autonomy over blind trust in authority and testimonial knowledge. Maria also discuss the idea that people sometimes have a right to ignorance, especially when knowledge could be overwhelming or paralyzing. The study highlights the urgent need to address these epistemic challenges, as unchecked knowledge resistance can lead to political instability, public health crises, and weakened democratic institutions.
Peter Pagin – Propaganda and Assertion
Departing form the view that propaganda is to be understood as inherently anti-rational and relies on content manipulation and audience persuasion, Peter Pagin takes a renewed approach, arguing instead that propaganda should be understood as an activity centered on systematic manipulation. By analyzing assertions, sincerity, and manipulation techniques, Peter highlights how propaganda often operates independently of truthfulness or genuine belief in the message. Rather, it is shaped by the intent to control perception through selective messaging, trust-building strategies, and authoritative delivery, making it an effective tool in shaping public opinion. This approach shifts the focus of identifying propaganda from evaluating correctness to methods of persuasion. By consequence, even truthful and sincerely believed statements can function as propaganda if they are strategically designed to mislead or manipulate.
Psychology talks
Cory J. Clark – Politicization Undermines Trust in Institutions (and Science)
Individuals are more likely to accept information that aligns with their worldview while dismissing contradictory evidence, even when it is well-supported by facts. Cory Clark explores the role of media and social networks in reinforcing knowledge resistance and how echo chambers limit exposure to diverse perspectives. By understanding the mechanisms behind knowledge resistance, strategies can be developed to promote critical thinking and information literacy. These insights are crucial in designing more effective communication strategies that encourage constructive dialogue and reduce polarization.
Lotte Pummerer – Conspiracy Beliefs as Motivated Knowledge Resistance: Their Effects and Paths to Intervention
People tend to reject information that contradicts their existing beliefs, especially when those beliefs are tied to their identity or group affiliations. Lotte Pummerer discuss how misinformation spreads and why individuals persist in false beliefs despite corrections. The talk highlights how cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, make people more likely to accept information that aligns with their preconceptions while dismissing contradictory evidence. By consequence, knowledge resistance is not merely a result of ignorance but is deeply rooted in human cognition and social dynamics. Understanding the role of emotional engagement, trust-building, social networks in shaping beliefs is crucial in addressing societal challenges such as climate change denial, vaccine hesitancy, and political misinformation.
Andreas Olsson – Conformity and Partisanship Impact Perceived Truthfulness, Liking and Sharing of Tweets
What one evaluates to be true and not may differ in online environments compared to the real world. Andreas Olsson talks us through how social media features, such as popularity (likes) and partisan alignment impact perceptions of truth and engagement behaviors. Through experimental studies in social media-like environments, Andreas and his colleagues exposed participants to varying degrees of popularity from peers of in- or out-group political affiliation. While the popularity of content slightly influenced truth ratings, political identity demonstrated a more pronounced effect, where popularity from their own political group increased perceived truthfulness of a statement.
Media and Communication talks
Dannagal G. Young – Curving the Demand for Identity-driven Wrongness
What role does of social identity play in shaping public perceptions in environments of high misinformation and political polarization? The central argument Dannagal Young makes in her book Wrong is that people are not simply misled by false information, but are often drawn to it because it aligns with their psychological and social needs, such as comprehension, control, and community. Political elites, media institutions, and social media platforms exploit these tendencies, using identity-based messaging to reinforce group loyalties and heighten emotional engagement. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle where individuals interpret the world through the lens of their political and social identities, making them more susceptible to motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.
By implication, breaking such cycles require more than content moderation – it demands systemic changes in journalism, political communication, and media consumption habits to encourage intellectual humility, community-centered journalism, and disrupting rigid political identities to help mitigate the effects of polarization.
Emily Thorson – The Invented State: Policy Misperceptions in the American Public
In her book The invented State, Emily Thorson discusses how misperceptions about public policy arise and persist, largely due to a lack of media coverage on existing policies and the human tendency to fill in knowledge gaps through inductive reasoning. Condensed in a 30 minute talk, the research behind the book demonstrates how most news coverage focuses on political strategy and future policy proposals, leaving the public with little accurate information about how current policies work. As a result, people rely on their own reasoning, which can lead to systematic errors, such as assuming intentional misconduct (e.g., fraud or mismanagement) rather than recognizing structural causes of policy challenges. However, with experimental evidence, Emily demonstrates that policy misperceptions are widespread but correctable, with corrections proving durable over time and influencing people’s attitudes toward policies in meaningful ways.
Jesper Strömbäck – Truth, Trust and the News Media: Rethinking a Complex Relationship
Why does not high-quality, fact-based journalism necessarily lead to increased trust in media? Jesper Strömbäck talks us through how political polarization, alternative media narratives, and public epistemological differences contribute to belief polarization, selective exposure, and the undermining of mainstream journalism’s credibility. If truthful reporting does not guarantee trust, then strategies for reinforcing the credibility of fact-based journalism must evolve. Declining trust may not always indicate a failure of journalism but rather a shift in audience perceptions, raising critical questions about how news organizations should navigate the tension between truthful reporting and audience trust. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for addressing misinformation and safeguarding democratic discourse.
Political Science talks
Alexa Bankert – Flip the Script: Shifting Perspectives on Polarization & Partisanship
While ideological polarization allows for a healthy distinction between parties, emotional polarization fosters hostility and distrust, even when individuals share common policy preferences. The main argument put forth by Alexa Bankert is that partisanship comes in different forms. Positive partisanship, where individuals identify strongly with their own party, fosters political engagement and electoral stability, while negative partisanship, characterized by hostility toward the opposing party, leads to misinformation, intolerance, and even reduced support for democratic norms.
Importantly, Alexa’s research challenges the assumption that negative partisanship is simply a byproduct of strong party loyalty – many individuals dislike the opposing party even when they feel lukewarm about their own. Negative partisanship thrives in environments where hostility is normalized, whereas positive partisanship is associated with engagement and political participation without necessarily fostering animosity. Fostering norms of respect and civility within political parties could help mitigate the negative effects of polarization without sacrificing democratic engagement. Addressing emotional polarization may require efforts from both political leaders and voters to shift the norms that define partisanship.
Roderik Rekker – Political Polarization over Facts and Science
Trust in science has not historically been strongly linked to political affiliation. Yet, in recent years, ideological and populist divides have led to greater skepticism, particularly among right-wing and populist voters. Through a multi-level framework, Roderik Rekker discuss how both psychological and elite-driven skepticism has contributed to the increasing polarization of science, creating a feedback loop of distrust. This distrust extends beyond specific scientific claims to entire fields and institutions, making it harder to build consensus on pressing issues such as climate change.