What happens when intuition and logic clash in a discussion about beliefs? This question lies at the heart of a fascinating conversation between Mark Solomon of Being Reasonable and Sophie Danran, a Reiki practitioner. Their dialogue explores the practice of energy healing, the role of personal experience, and the challenges of distinguishing personal truths from universal truths.

Reiki, which Sophie defines as working with “universal life force energy,” is a deeply personal belief for her. She shares how her background as a computer programmer shifted after a profound personal loss, leading her to embrace intuition over logic. For Mark, however, this raised critical questions about how we know what we know and whether beliefs like Reiki can stand up to scrutiny.

Using a Street Epistemology (SE) checklist, this conversation was analyzed for how well it adhered to SE principles—such as asking respectful questions and encouraging critical thinking. While the discussion had moments of clarity and thoughtful inquiry, it also highlighted the difficulty of examining unfalsifiable beliefs—those that cannot be proven or disproven.

A key moment arose when Mark questioned whether Reiki’s effects could be distinguished from a placebo effect. Sophie’s response—suggesting that both might operate in similar ways—sparked a larger debate about subjective and objective truths. This led to a philosophical exploration, with Sophie referencing quantum physics concepts like superposition to argue that truths could depend on perception.

However, the conversation revealed the importance of defining terms and challenging assumptions. For instance, Sophie’s reliance on intuition as a way of knowing demonstrated the need for deeper probing into how beliefs are formed. Tools like confidence scales, which gauge how strongly someone holds a belief, could have helped illuminate areas of uncertainty and fostered further reflection.

The analysis also noted areas for improvement. Building rapport, for example, could have made Sophie more receptive to Mark’s questions. By establishing trust and connecting on a human level, discussions like these can create a safe space for honest exploration of beliefs.

In a world where personal truths often clash with universal ones, this conversation underscores the value of critical thinking and respectful dialogue. While not every discussion will lead to a change of heart, each one can plant seeds of curiosity and pave the way for greater understanding.

So, how do we navigate disagreements in a polarized world? By approaching conversations with humility, curiosity, and a willingness to question—not only others' beliefs but also our own. In doing so, we can create connections that transcend our differences and uncover the deeper truths that unite us.