Street Epistemology?

I recently attended an international Skeptics Society conference. One of the highlights was an interactive demonstration and experience of “Street Epistemology” by philosophy professor Peter Boghossian.

Our current times are famously tense, with people choosing sides on a wide range of issues and digging in to defend their side. In many cases, the actual issues may be less important than tribal identification. Or, what is known as “virtue signaling”: Making statements to show that you are virtuous, rather than that you really believe them.

This is unfortunate for many reasons. A functioning democracy requires citizens openly to discuss ideas in an honest manner. How else are we going to arrive at an understanding of problems? And if we don’t understand and agree on problems, how can we agree on solutions?

Street Epistemology is a technique to facilitate respectful and honest conversation on any topic. “Epistemology” is the theory of knowledge. Before we can establish what is true, we first have to agree on what it means to know something. In short: “How do you know that is true?”

Socrates invented a form of Street Epistemology (the Socratic Method), which teaches by asking guiding questions. Socrates famously was able to elicit a proof of the Pythagorean theorem from an uneducated slave using this method of guided questioning.

The goal is not to change someone’s beliefs. The goal is to make someone question how they came to hold their beliefs. But the result may be that they do end up changing their beliefs. The result may even be that they change their entire way of thinking about all their beliefs, not just the one at hand. And their answers may also cause the questioner to change their own belief and/or ways of thinking!

After experiencing the process for several hours and watching videos online, I am not sure there is a single formula to make this work. It seems more to be a matter of being respectful and listening and really caring what the other person is saying. It is also more about the process of thinking than it is about
the conclusion.

It can consist of these questions:

What do you believe?

Why do you believe it?

How do you know it is true?

What would it take for you to change your mind?

At the Skeptic conference, Boghossian laid out seven mats on the floor, labeled: Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. He chose three participants. He made a claim and then people moved to the mat indicating their agreement or disagreement. He would ask someone: “What would it take for you to move one mat to the left (or right)?”

This encouraged people to consider what factual information might change their view. One of the topics was the Climate Crisis.

Two participants stood on the “Disagree” mat, indicating they had doubt about the Climate Crisis. Then I made the claim: “We should be doing more to avert the Crisis.” That caused one participant to move from Disagree to Agree. He had doubt about the cause and severity of the threat. But he agreed we should do more. The other participant simply repeated the Libertarian ideological view that people should be “free” to drive gas guzzlers if they want and not be “forced” to change behavior.

I was disappointed at how many Skeptics at the conference held such extreme Libertarian views, without understanding the hidden subsidies and pressures that maintain the status quo. But I was encouraged that Street Epistemology was a way to facilitate learning, questioning, and considering other views.

Anthony Magnabosco is a founder and current executive director of Street Epistemology International and offers hundreds of YouTube videos demonstrating the technique one on one.

One critique against Street Epistemology noted that we know many things without remembering how we know them. How do you know that Washington chopped down a cherry tree? Well, it turns out that story was made up by “biographer” Mason Locke Weems seven years after Washington died. See? When you think about how you know things, you may find that some of what you “know” just ain’t so!