Workshop: 'Under Pressure: Character, Certainty, Conspiracy'

How people change (or fail to) under pressure, false certainty and misinformation

Institute for Ethics & Society Workshop - Thursday 3 September 2026

10:00 am – 4:30 pm (AEST)

In an age of outrage, algorithms and information overload, how do we become people of resilient character, humble conviction and wise discernment? Drawing on several funded research projects in Europe and Australia, this workshop explores how pressure exposes the heart and yet shapes the self, how self-righteousness quietly corrupts our capacity for knowledge and understanding of self and others, and how conspiracy theories and AI-generated “slopaganda” shape the way we see the world.

The IES is pleased to host this event on the occasion of Laura Candiotto’s visit to Sydney. Laura is Associate Professor of Moral Philosophy (Universities of Cagliari and Pardubice). She currently leads two research projects, including ‘Vicious Epistemic Cultures’ on the ethics of knowledge with a specific focus on emotional friction in revision responsibility, funded by the Czech Science Foundation. Laura is currently working on a monograph, Emotional Friction, and a co-edited collection entitled Vice Epistemology and the Philosophy of Emotions (Routledge).

 

SPEAKERS

Laura Candiotto (Cagliari and Pardubice) ‘Character revision under duress’

 

John Lippitt (Notre Dame IES and Pardubice) ‘Failures of receptivity: self-righteousness as a stealthy vice’

 

Adam Piovarchy (Notre Dame IES) ‘Conspiracy theories are Infohazards’

 

Mark Alfano (Macquarie) ‘Slopaganda’

Event poster: https://url.au.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/NdGNCq712YtRgVKVFXhKphE8bFg?domain=notredame.edu.au

 

Location:

The University of Notre Dame Australia,

NDS23/102 (Wilcox Mofflin Building)

46-52 Mountain Street Ultimo, NSW, 2007

 

Or online via Teams

For enquiries, Teams link and to RSVP:

Professor John Lippitt (john.lippitt AT nd.edu.au)

My source: Philos-L "The Liverpool List" is run by the Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy/philos-l/ Messages to the list are archived at http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html. Recent posts can also be read in a Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosL/ Follow the list on Twitter @PhilosL. Follow the Department of Philosophy @LiverpoolPhilos

'Common Knowledge' c/o Steven Pinker

Steven Pinker's latest book When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows...: 

is subtitled: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life.

It is 'common knowledge' that caught my attention. In health care we seek common knowledge on several levels:

person (patient, client) 🠜🠞 healthcare practitioner (whatever their training)
carer - guardian  🠜🠞  healthcare practitioner
person / carer  🠜🠞 team

If we think about the referral processes, interfaces, gateways that people have to negotiate on their way to the above, you see how hard-won common knowledge is.

Critically, the knowledge may be 'common' but how accurate is it?

For the team common knowledge is essential to ensure safety, understanding and continually assessing risk.

In healthcare (and education) for person-centredness we take note of what data is available, but simultaneously begin with a blank sheet. ...

Individual

|

      INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC =========================  MECHANISTIC      

 SOCIOLOGY  :    POLITICAL 

|

Group

When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows:

'Sometimes, though, private knowledge can no longer be contained even if it is desirable; sometimes something is so evident that it does not even need words to express it. The presidential debate brings to mind a joke Pinker tells about a man in the Soviet Union arrested by the KGB for handing out leaflets, which turn out to be blank sheets of paper. "What is the meaning of this?" they demand. The man replies, "What is there to write? It's so obvious!"' Kelly, p.9.

Pinker, S. (2025). When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows...: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Scribner.

My source: Jemima Kelly, Life&Arts, FTWeekend, 20/21 September 2025. p.9; and BBC Radio 4 Start the Week - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002k37y

Image source: https://stevenpinker.com/

Previously: 'blank' : '2+2=?' : 'Book: Love's Labour by Stephen Grosz'

Global cost of silencing science BMJ ...

Editorials

Global cost of silencing science

BMJ 2025; 390 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r1370 (Published 10 July 2025)Cite this as: BMJ 2025;390:r1370

'Public trust in scientific integrity is eroded by the politicisation of institutions under Donald Trump’s US presidency. The implications extend far beyond American borders, striking at the core of how scientific knowledge is produced, disseminated, and trusted worldwide.

Recent directives seek to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, cut federal funding to critical health research agencies, and restrict references to gender, race, and climate science in official documentation. Scientific staff at federal agencies face mounting pressure to comply with politically motivated communication policies. Such institutional interference not only distorts scientific findings—it undermines the principles of transparency and editorial independence outlined in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations.1 As members of ICMJE we feel compelled to speak out.

The ICMJE underscores that “editors should preserve the integrity of the scientific record by critically evaluating manuscripts free from undue influence and without compromising scholarly values.”1 Yet, under the current administration, several US federal science agencies require pre-approval for external publications—a direct contravention of these editorial standards.2 This climate of control stifles open inquiry and discourages evidence based discourse, particularly when scientific conclusions diverge from political narratives.'
...

'Independent scientific communication is equally under threat. Increasing pressure on government researchers to avoid controversial topics or reframe findings to suit political narratives creates an institutional chilling effect. Self-censorship born of fear may be more damaging than overt censorship. Researchers, particularly early career scientists and those from under-represented backgrounds, may choose to abandon public communication or controversial areas of inquiry altogether. This trend further narrows the scope of scientific innovation, limits the range of perspectives reflected in research agendas, and ultimately harms health.'
...

'This is a call for science grounded in ethical principles and dedicated to the service of humanity. Scientific research, especially in medicine and public health, is inherently intertwined with social justice. Silencing DEI initiatives, censoring climate science, and delegitimising minority researchers is not neutrality—it is complicity in perpetuating harm.'
...

Footnotes

This article is being jointly published by The BMJ, Deutsches Ärtzeblatt, Journal of Korean Medical Science, Lancet, La Tunisie Médicale, Medwave, and New Zealand Medical Journal.

References

1. ↵
   International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations. 2025. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
2. ↵
   Bush V. Science—the Endless Frontier. 75th anniversary edition. National Science Foundation, 1980. https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/2023-04/EndlessFrontier75th_w.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r1370

My source: https://x.com/bmj_latest/status/1944478436489134350