In this episode, I speak with Anthony Magnabosco a founder and the current Executive Director of the nonprofit Street Epistemology International, an educational organization that is committed to addressing dysfunction in public and private discourse by encouraging rationality through civil conversation. Anthony has been involved with Street Epistemology since 2013, and has given dozens of talks and workshops at conferences and events domestically and internationally. Many of his conversations have been uploaded to YouTube and demonstrate how Street Epistemology can be applied to a variety of claims including ones that are spiritual, political, or societal.
It’s called “being open-minded and respectful.”
That’s a big part of it, but instead of attacking someones beliefs which usually triggers the backfire effect and puts someone in defense mode, instead you question someones reasons behind their belief and ask questions that make them explain why they believe and could someone use that same reasoning to come to a completely different belief. I highly recommend checking out street epistemology on YouTube.
I’m familiar with Magnibosco and AMFCA. I was putting my tongue in my cheek.
How was anyone supposed to get that?
I was imagining a lot of people would already know, and the rest would read the article? That’s on me, my bad.
That’s on me, my bad.
Is this tongue in cheek too and really just a dig at me, or do you actually realize that there was no way to tell?
🤷♀️
I’m involved in a lot of Street Epistemology stuff and I’ve worked with Anthony before. He’s an incredibly nice dude and also does stuff for Recovering From Religion.
I mostly do content creation and run my own SE group and I’ve done a looooot of SE. It seems simple and to most people here it isn’t revolutionary, but it’s surprisingly effective at de-escalating conversations with people whom you disagree with. It avoids the conflict nature of an argument and tends to get people to express more genuine thoughts than talking points. The method isn’t perfect and it has limits obviously, but I’d recommend everyone know it. It’s not just helpful for personal debates but it’s also helped me relate to people professionally and communicate better.
If you have questions about SE or want to run through a short session with me on discord, reply to this or DM me.
How about you don’t become the very people you hate and just leave everyone alone. As long as they don’t try to debate you or convert you, let people be.
They’re always trying to convert you
“Planting seeds” and all that
Stop pretending people who still believe in Santa clause have or even follow any sort of moral high ground
I haven’t said or claimed to hate anyone. As for leaving people alone, I enjoy talking to people and learning about their beliefs, street epistemology isn’t debating, it’s a tool for having conversations where both people get to explore their reasons for holding a belief, you only focus on the reasons why and not the actual belief itself, the goal isn’t to necessarily change someones mind but for them to consider why they believe something, the talks should always be civil and friendly. There are lots of good examples on YouTube of street epistemology, people typically enjoy the conversations and some will come back after they have had time to reflect to continue the conversation.
I will never understand why some atheists are so keen to proselytize. We’re not saving souls, we don’t get 10%, what’s the point?
We make decisions based on our beliefs, ranging from who we vote for to flying airplanes into buildings. Having a method that can let us examine our reasons for holding a belief is worth exploring. Street epistemology is a method of asking someone to explain their reasoning for believing something and letting them come to their own conclusion, so I’m not sure that would be considered proselytizing.
You’re saying that being atheist makes you more rational and being more rational causes better (more moral) decisions? I have problems with both of those premises.
Their are perfectly secular reasons to do all the horrible. The Young Turks instituted a new government in what was left of the Ottoman Empire that was explicitly secular. Then they did the crime that coined the term genocide. The least religious country in the world is erasing a culture right now. I’ve watched online secular communities slide into alt-right ideology.
I’m of the school of thought that believes normative ethics can’t be arrived at or justified with reason. So it doesn’t really follow that reason leads to ethics. Claims like “human life is valuable” or “stealing is wrong” inevitably rely on other normative claims, and trying to burrow down logically on these questions is like a dog chasing it’s tail.
The difference is that those secularists are shitty people in spite of their beliefs not because of them.
We can draw direct correlations between religion and shitty behavior. Rape and slavery are explicitly ok in the Bible.
Show me one “atheist text” that says anything even remotely similar. You can’t. There are none. There is no aspect of atheism you can point to and say that thing is bad.
I can point out something horrible nearly every religion has done and is predicted on the belief that that horrible thing is ok when they do it.
You just made a huge false equivalency.
Atheism is not a religion or belief “system”. It is laughing at you when you say you believe in a sky genie.
No one is saying atheists are better people or can’t be bad people. We are saying religion didn’t make is that way. But that is what religion does.
I haven’t said anything here about being atheist or morality. Street epistemology focuses on the reasons and or decisions that may have led someone to a belief not the actual belief itself. When we try to explain why we really believe something lots of times people come to realize they may not have a good reason to hold a belief. This goal isn’t to change someones.mind on the spot, rather to get someone thinking and to reflect on why they believe something.
I haven’t said anything here about being atheist
in fairness, this is the atheist community
I get that but, he was saying I said something when in fact I had not, he was either making assumptions or purposely misrepresenting what I was saying.
I’m of the school of thought that believes normative ethics can’t be arrived at or justified with reason
So in order to have ethics we have to invent nonsense or believe in it?
Reducing the number of shitty believers is a value in itself.
The point is open discussions on a topic that too many people view as untouchable, unassailable, unquestionable.
When I was raised religious, hearing the slightest critique of my religion filled me with irrational frustration, I was utterly unable to have those conversations with anyone, in part because to have doubts felt like some kind of sin.
But hearing others have those conversations helped me realize that some of my doubts were shared and that I wasn’t alone. Hearing others have those conversations honestly, and with empathy and intelligence made me realize my own fears were a kind of cognitive dissonance that prevented me from actually forming my own opinions instead of parroting the opinions I was raised with; and for those conversations I am eternally grateful.
It’s not always about the conversation between two people; it’s also about the audience who listens to both sides to form their own opinions.
I think it’s just trying to be helpful. You realize you woke up from the matrix and want to help unlock others. But not everyone wants to be disconnected from the matrix.
probably different for those of us who were never in it to begin with.
Probably is.
As someone who was raised in a cult, having voices willing to publicly challenge the orthodoxy does way more than it appears to unplug people and get them to acknowledge the abuse
