A Distinction Worth Preserving

[ndrosen]

I do not object to all changes in language, but I do think that we should steadfastly oppose those which erode our ability to make useful distinctions, and thus to speak and think clearly. At least since I was in college in the early 1980s, people have sometimes been using the word “refute” to mean “disagree with” or “deny”, and I believe that this usage should be resisted and red-penciled by all who value clear and expressive language.

If “Smith refuted Jones” comes to mean only that Smith expressed a contrary opinion, or disputed Jones’s accusation, how shall we convey briefly that Smith actually showed, by logic and evidence, that Jones’s views were in error?

Yelling back at the other guy is not, in general, refuting him, and in an age of so many heated quarrels between Team Red and Team Blue, this is a distinction worth preserving.

Comments

[stoutfellow]

Agreed on all counts. This is one of my relatively few word-peeves.