I attended Bill Flavell giving a presentation Wednesday night on “Street Epistemology” at CLHG.
One way or another epistemology is the topic of my blog these last 15 years, and using epistemology to create ontologies for business information models has been my day job for maybe 25 so far, so epistemology (and cladistic taxonomies) I know something about. So-called Street Epistemology I’m previously no expert on, but it’s the branding of a methodology for atheists “interlocuting” with those of faith, after Peter “How to Create an Atheist” Boghossian. More on which later, but I gathered a few thoughts on what I was expecting, based on materials on the web sites of Peter Boghossian and Anthony Magnabosco, before the actual session. So first my own pre-amble:
Epistemology is the study of knowledge about the world.
It covers what, why and how we know, and how we understand the semantics (meaning) of what we (believe we) know about the world. That is not so much what is believed but the basis and the mechanics of believing and knowing.
[Ontology is the study of what exists in the world.
Assuming there exists an actual real world, ontology is really therefore about the model of what we believe to exist, hence the presumed relationship between our model and the actual world, based on what we know about it.
Most ontologies involve a taxonomy of classes (types) of things that exist, and their relationships. The basis for membership of any classes is therefore invariably based on what we can know about them – a kind of 20 questions (is it a bird? is it a plane?) or structured sequence or strategy of questioning (why is that your answer, etc.) – hence an intimate relationship between ontology and epistemology.]
Street Epistemology (SE) is defined as:
A way of having more productive conversations
with believers to help them
re-examine the foundations of their beliefs.
[That way of conducting the dialogue is just such a sequence, flowchart or strategy of asking the basis of what is known / believed. Hence Epistemology. And, the context is to conduct such a dialogue in everyday terms on everyday neutral territory. Hence Street.]
So far so good. Understanding what we know by asking questions is as old as Socrates, indeed the Socratic method is named after him. Adding logic to create episteme and ontolog is what Aristotle first sought to formalise, and the debates continue today.
However, the phrasing of the definition is decidedly one sided – them and us. We are about to help and educate them apparently? “With all due respect” arrogant, cynical and disingenuous. Better (ie more equitable and honest) as:
A way of having more productive conversations
with believers to help them to help us
re-examine the foundations of
their our beliefs
So (most recently a la Baggini): “Faithful” or “Rational” we all have thin ice or stacks of turtles under what we believe, whether we call it truth, knowledge, belief or faith. There is always a why (first cause) or at the very least a next question beyond our declared foundation.
The main quality of what we believe on the scale of knowledge to faith is how dogmatic or contingent we hold it to be true and the basis on which we justify holding it (if asked – hence the SE Q&A). The point is to recognise evidence and revisability based on experience (direct first-hand and/or authoritative, transparent, positively- or negatively-verifiable, second or third-hand experience).
The main enemy of reasonable belief is dogma, either individually or in unchallengable authority. Belief that doesn’t recognise doubt, questioning and challenge. Common dogmas are in:
(a) What counts as evidence of what.
(b) Denying the turtles, claiming a foundation more solid than we really have.
(c) Denying that what we believe, we know on whatever basis we hold about the world is always going to have a human dimension, however “objectively” we might rationalise it.
Corollaries? There are too many to mention, so let’s switch to the actual talk:
After introducing the idea of the Socratic method, the questioning strategy, with the proviso not to lapse into any judgmental or emotional statements, nor to assert any alternative beliefs or arguments held by the questioner, the talk was mainly examples from the Magnabasco web resources. Both raw recordings of Q&A street interviews with theists, and a post-analysis commentary by Magnabasco – points to note and lessons to learn in conducting better Street Epistemology interviews.
Several comments from the audience questioned the disingenuity of the approach. Sure, there is nothing wrong with the Socratic method, but the unspoken (denied) objective of converting the target interviewee, or at least sowing seeds of doubt, getting them to question their beliefs, to leave holding such a question, is disingenuous.
Secondly all the examples used were too easy. Certain (100%) believers, but young, with little evidence of previous theological or philosophical bases of their beliefs. The SE people even have a name for them (after Socrates) “the unexamined”. All too easy to find a question to which the Interlocutor (interviewee) had never considered the basis of any answer, or to hold back on superior knowledge of ancient rehearsed arguments (Pascal’s wager, or Socrates Euthyphro argument).
So far as it goes, to sow seeds of doubt in “the unexamined” believers, then SE is fine of course. And, for atheist interlocutors, if learning the value of the open questioning strategy is needed, rather than reacting negatively and emotionally with “rationalist” counter-assertions, then a 2500 year-old lesson is always good too. All good if done genuinely.
There remain the two problems however. One, it could never lead anywhere with sophisticated theists or theologians, without switching into more active alternative arguments. ie it’s not that argument is bad, whether the dialogue is one-sided questioning or two-way cut and thrust, but that respect and politeness add value to both (mutually from both sides). Sophisticated theists have plenty of doubt. The trick is to understand the things about which they have least doubts.
And two, what is missing with SE is any respect for the other. The whole basis is “we know; we’re educating you”. The “empathic” approach is all a front. You can just about get away with such arrogance when the target is (a) naive in terms of the content of the argument, and (b) naive in terms of the hidden one-sided agenda. Anywhere else it is plain disrespectful and guaranteed to antagonise.
The right kind of respect is what Daniel Dennett cites as “Rappaport’s Law”. You should never start from a position opposing your interlocutor (in explicit open debate or in secret behind your questioning approach) unless and until you can demonstrate your understanding of their position. Indeed, demonstrate it so well they might reply “Yes, that’s exactly what I mean, I wish I’d thought of it like that.” OK, so sometimes time and life are too short to really get to that position in all real cases, and if naive your interlocutor may not have any sophisticated position anyway, but it is the principle of respect to at least genuinely wish to understand the other’s position. That’s empathy.
The disingenuity kills that stone dead.
Sadly, it’s even worse than that. Not only is there no attempt to understand the other, over and above the “we’re educating them” stance, there were several totally dismissive positions cited:
The idea of “believing A and not-A to be true” was dismissed with with a snigger. Actually such a position is usually a big clue that neither side really understands yet what A is, or is holding only partial definitions. And, in other cases where objects are unclear or paradoxical, there may be truth and falsity spread over multiple categories of objects and layers of causation, not to mention timescales from historical, immediate and predictive.
Similarly the idea that not all belief in the truth of A can be 100% definitively backed by evidence was also ridiculed. Believing – knowing A – by feel and presence. This is just another consequence of dealing with poorly understood A. (Which isn’t to say a better defined A is necessarily better understood, simply that more questions are needed).
To cut a long story short, atheist rationalists have as much to learn from others (atheist or theist) using SE as any theists might do from atheists. It is dismissive and pejorative to start from a position that treats the other as deluded and unreasonable, in need of the benefit of your education, mentally ill in need of our conselling. At least Socrates knew he knew a lot less than the average atheist. SE is a curate’s egg. Good in parts, for the unexamined, but fundamentally rotten.
Finally, the supreme irony, is that scientistic atheist rationalists are typically the most vocal “new-atheists” in denying the value of philosophy. Science and logic already have everything anyone need know sewn-up apparently. Good news is that Bill Flavell blogs at “NilDogma” so hope for change 😉