you're correct about the testability of it's efficacy, however at least it gives me some kind of framework to operate within rather than simply scoffing at the deluded and entering some kind of silly argument. All street evangelists can hope for is to be able to plant a seed that leads the unwitting to faith in the supernatural. Street epistomology on the other hand is at least a technique that can do the the same but in reverse. What is wrong with encouraging people to think critically about blind faith in anything?

It's more akin to a structured conversation. This stops both parties wandering into the realms of argument

It is basically a technique that can be learned whereby unwitting believers can be stopped on the street under the premise of taking a survey / interview and cajoled and tricked into rhetorical traps that undermine their faith.

@LenHazell53 I think you mischaracterise SE Len. SE does nothing more than poise pointed questions which encourage critical thought (sadly for the first time in some) in a subject surrounding blind faith. If any traps are experienced they are self imposed.

@LenHazell53 Anything that makes people with 'faith' start to think about the nonsense they believe is ok by me. Nobody's forcing them to answer.

@Flettie perhaps, but if you check it out on You Tube, you might see what I mean, or perhaps because I don't like being accosted in the street, I would not do it to others for any reason, but yes perhaps it is just a personal foible.

@LenHazell53 in the explanatory notes it points out that this is used in informal situations and not always in street interviews. For me it's a way of having a structured exchange when I myself are accosted in the street by the God Squad.