“ACUPUNTURA FUNCIONA?"

UM DIÁLOGO ENTRE EPISTEMOLOGIA APLICADA E LINGUÍSTICA APLICADA

Abstract

While countless people ignore scientific evidence and deny human influence on climate change, the absence of scientific validation does not prevent millions of patients from attributing their improvement to treatments not recognized by science. This scenario calls into question the weight of scientific testimony as a validator of practices and draws attention to the process through which justifications for beliefs are formed. In this context, by establishing connections between Applied Linguistics (Moita Lopes, 2006) and Applied Epistemology (Coady and Fricker, 2016), the present study seeks to investigate (1) how participants in an interaction on the X platform position science in the presentation of their belief regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture, and (2) whether such belief can be considered reasonable from an epistemological standpoint. To this end, after analyzing the data in light of the Appraisal System (Martin and White, 2005), attention is drawn to the contrast between what is observed in the analyzed interactions and what the normativity of Applied Epistemology prescribes as a reasoned process of belief formation. The analysis of the data reveals the existence of two groups who believe in the effectiveness of acupuncture: those who claim that there is scientific evidence supporting their position, and those who rely on anecdotal justifications. Concluding that the participants’ justifications do not guarantee the reasonableness of their beliefs, the study seeks to understand why they adopt such positions. Finally, it is argued that the deviation from epistemological normativity is related to the socioconstructionist nature of discourse and its impact on belief formation, especially in the case of the placebo effect.