Street Epistemology

Photo by Harli Marten on Unsplash

As long as I remember I have always been interested by skepticism. And I think one element that really resonated with me has been that conference talk by Phil Plait:

15 years later I would still recommend a watch today.

I think that motto: “Don’t be a dick” stayed with me ever since. It was not easy while spending time on Twitter. I have probably been a dick several times over there. And I only remember one and only one good interaction on Twitter. I believe it was because my interlocutor at that time really tried to understand me, and I was giving him the same treatment.

What is this blog about?

“Street Epistemology” (SE), it’s only after hearing at least dozens of times about the concept that I decided to investigate. At that time, the reference everybody was pointing at was the videos from Anthony Magnabosco.

At first I didn’t like his videos TBH. The topic is often about religion which is not my cup of tea. But after retrying a couple of times, I started to notice how easily Anthony could speak of tough subjects like religious belief with anybody on the street. And that without an ounce of conflict, all in peace. Without being a dick…

So what is Street Epistemology?

It is a set of techniques and a practice to conduct a pleasant conversation with someone while discussing some of his important beliefs. The conversation is asymmetric, each side plays a specific role.

The roles

The « questioner »

The "questioner" guides the conversation. Their first goal is to create a calm and welcoming space where their partner feels safe expressing their deeply held beliefs. Without this, SE is impossible!

The second goal is to understand their partner’s ideas by asking step-by-step questions. Success is achieved when the questioner can summarize the other person’s thoughts as clearly as if they were their own.

Finally, the questioner’s last goal is to provide critical perspective. They help their partner articulate their ideas, reflect on their statements, and even strengthen their arguments. There is no notion of winning or losing—regardless of the outcome, both parties benefit.

The « interlocutor »

As for the interlocutor, they express their opinion. Around 70% of the speaking time is dedicated to them, and only their perspective is discussed—the questioner’s opinion is discouraged. If the interlocutor asks for the questioner’s view, it should be shared only at the end of the conversation. This approach helps prevent much of the tension.

The Five Steps of an SE conversation

Building Rapport

Establishing a friendly connection usually takes less than five minutes. Rushing straight to the point to save time would be a mistake—genuine interest in the other person, sharing personal experiences, and finding common ground are valuable. This time is essential for fostering self-reflective thinking while making the conversation both productive and enjoyable.

Consent to discuss a sensitive topic must always be obtained explicitly, even with close acquaintances. Pressuring someone, even unintentionally, undermines trust. Maintaining a positive atmosphere is crucial—if consent wavers or the mood deteriorates, it should be addressed immediately.

Focusing on the Key Argument

This process consists of three steps. Initially, the topic may be vaguely defined, so some time is spent refining a statement that truly reflects the interlocutor’s core belief. Next, the arguments supporting this belief are listed. Finally, the key argument—the one carrying the most weight for the interlocutor—is identified.

Identifying the Epistemology

This step involves clarifying the process or method the interlocutor uses to support their key argument. It may be based on personal experience, an authoritative source, scientific consensus, tradition, intuition, faith, or other reasoning.

Testing the Epistemology

This is the most delicate phase, as the goal is not to counter-argue but to help the interlocutor find their own counter-arguments. They are encouraged to consider questions they may not have asked before: Are my ideas internally consistent? How could my belief be proven wrong? In what situations? Using what methods?

An experienced questioner guides the interlocutor toward such reflections without imposing their own views. It is not uncommon for the questioner to change their own perspective based on the discussion. The most rewarding moments are often marked by long, thoughtful silences, followed by “That’s a good question” or “I don’t know.”

Conclusion

An SE conversation can be mentally demanding for both participants. When possible, the questioner aims to conclude on a positive note, even if not all objectives are met.

Paradoxically, while changing one’s mind takes time, the best conversations last under twenty minutes, often leaving a sense of unfinished business. The goal is to spark deep reflection over several days, until the next discussion. Moreover, concluding an interview does not mean closing the conversation—the questioner remains available to share and challenge their own beliefs, at least as an act of reciprocity.

Source: Jason Bloch, Tanguy Robyr, and Charlie Tétillon from the non-profit organization “Opinion sur Rue” promoting SE in French

How to learn and practice it

So aside obviously the resources I already mentioned, now in 2025 I would recommend:

• The book “How to Have Impossible Conversations” from Peter Boghossian. He is an American philosopher and college professor. And he is the main person who developed Street Epistemology methodology during the 2000s through field experiments and academic research. He refined his method by incorporating insights from psychology, negotiation, and deradicalization. His book from 2019 remains the key reference on the method.

  

• The free online course from Street Epistemology International non-profit organization led by Anthony Magnabosco:
  https://navigatingbeliefs.com/

  

• But if you are a French speaker, I would strongly recommend the free 9 weeks training from the non-profit French organization called “Opinions sur Rue” https://www.opinions-sur-rue.fr/
  I had the chance to take their training in 2024 and it was great. Also their Discord community is pretty active and easy-going.

  

But why am I talking about SE on a blog mostly about software engineering?

Well, for many reasons.

Polarization on social networks and in our modern society is a big problem. And us software engineers are part of the problem, and part of the solution too. So I believe there is inspiration to take from a tool like Street Epistemology and to apply to our software to help understanding each other and improving the search of consensual solutions instead of division.

As an engineering manager as well, we all run 1 on 1 meetings with our collaborators. And I think there are few things from SE that we should also use as well:

1. Embrace silences. We tend to avoid silence, thinking time is money and that we should make the most of the meeting time but just don’t do that. Silences are an important to leave room for thinking things through.

2. Use active listening. Let your collaborator express himself, your main goal during these 1 on 1 is to understand what you can do to help him/her. So you need to hear him/her and check if you really understood him/her by rephrasing his/her thoughts.

One last thing: Spectrum.
Spectrum is a derived practice from Street Epistemology also from Peter Boghossian, where multiples person participate to a conversation about their belief on a specific claim and standing physically on a paper representing their position from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

In a spirit of contributing to the movement of SE for better discussing on the Internet, I started to develop an online tool to run a Spectrum online. The team at “Opinion sur Rue” has been using it for some time now. And I want to share more details about it in future blog articles. So stay tuned.