A ciência como topos na argumentação jurídica: a mobilização do discurso científico nas decisões do STF sob a perspectiva tópico-retórica

Abstract

This dissertation examines the use of scientific discourse as an argumentative topos in the decisions of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF), drawing on topical and rhetorical theory, particularly through the theoretical contributions of Aristotle, Cicero, Theodor Viehweg, and Chäim Perelman. It starts from the observation that, in modernity, science has established itself as a prestigious epistemic commonplace, frequently invoked to confer legitimacy, rationality, and objectivity to judicial decisions, especially in contexts of high normative and technical complexity. The general objective is to understand how the STF mobilizes scientific knowledge as an argumentative strategy by reconstructing the historical development of topics, examining the epistemological foundations of modern science, and empirically analyzing rulings in which this practice appears, such as ADIs 5779, 6421, 6422, 6428 and ADPF 811. The research adopts a qualitative methodology and a topical-rhetorical approach to interpret the relationship between science and law, highlighting the role of topoi as instruments of persuasion and discursive legitimacy. It concludes that, although scientific discourse may enhance the rational foundation of judicial decisions, it can also be used uncritically, posing a risk of judicial technocratization. Thus, the study proposes a critical reading of legal rationality through the lens of topical theory, recognizing science as a relevant element that must be subjected to the argumentative scrutiny of intersubjective deliberation.