This is a linkpost for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8LYTy4DmEs&index=1&list=PLh10RgQgGuM-tnT7fKwgF4Dt57oh_yL5r
When pushed on why Anthony Magnabosco is out interviewing people he responds with, "I like talking to people and finding out what they believe." True enough, but disingenuous. He presents himself as a seeker of the truth and his root goal is he is out to change minds. If the obtaining the truth was your primary motivation, street interviews is an incredibly inefficient method. The interviews come off as incredibly patronising. Questions such as, "If I gave you evidence about a biblical contradiction, and I'm not saying I do, but if I did, would you change your mind?" Of course you have a contradiction up your sleeve.
Honesty and effectiveness appear to be conflicting goals in street epistemology.
I don't see any substantial evidence from the videos (at least the ones I bothered to watch) that he was changing anyone's mind. Once I had a discussion with a group of Mormons. I reduced them to saying repeatedly, "well, I don't know what to say about that." At the end I basically lectured them for 10 minutes about how bad it is to believe a false religion, and they were silent. But I have no reason to believe that any of them changed their minds to even the slightest degree. I would guess that these videos are the same thing.
Hard to say. I bet no one would be willing to say anything in front of the others.
There are examples of people changing their minds on the spot in Anthony Magnabosco's videos. There are other examples of people changing their minds after multiple encounters.
And I find this method useful for everyday discussions. If someone has good reasons for believing something, SE is a great way of cutting right to the core of it. If they have bad reasons, the same, plus it's a great way to help people discover the flaws in their methodology without making them defensive.
People are sooo much more rational when they're not defensive. I've been surprised to find out that people are more willing to change their minds than I thought.
Well, sure, if you actually go out on the street and ask people about things to change their minds AND if they ask you why you're doing it, then you may be forced to choose between honesty and some degree of openness/interest on their part.
But if someone you know expresses a belief, this method is worlds better for helping them identify any flaws in it than just explaining to them why they're wrong. That's how I've used it so far.
The conflict you mention only arises if you're asking strangers about beliefs. It's not weird to ask people you know about their beliefs, and it's not weird to engage strangers about their beliefs if they're the ones instigating.
I find it enormously powerful for the normal encounters of life.