Greg Egan
“The core meaning of refute is ‘prove a statement or theory to be wrong.’ In the second half of the 20th century a more general sense developed, meaning simply ‘deny.’ Traditionalists object to this newer use as a degradation of the language, but it is widely encountered.”
Keep “refute”≈“disprove”
84.5%
Let the meaning blur
15.5%
Poll ended at .
May 23, 2023 at 7:32amWeb
Show threadSpace HoboMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF Is the newer meaning perhaps a confusion with the word "rebuke"?
Show threadGreg EganMay 23, 2023
@spacehobo No.
Show threadErich Graf Apfel von HerthsenMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF Our refutation is at stake
Show threadMartin KimberMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF can we vote on some other language shifts too please, like “loose” versus “lose”
Show threadGreg EganMay 23, 2023
@drmakimber That’s not a shift. Maybe it happens as a typo, but nobody is trying to change the meanings of those words.
Show threadMartin KimberMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF interesting. I’m unsure where “confusion between similar sounding/spelling words” stops and “saying a word that sounds appropriate to win an argument” begins. But anyway was amused by you voting to hold back the tide. (I voted to keep the “correct” meaning of refute!)
Show threadStephen J. AndersonMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF I think you can’t fight language shifts. I learnt this lesson watching the meaning of “hacker” blur, and “literally” and “actually” fade into intensifiers
Show threadGreg EganMay 23, 2023

@utterfiction What happens, happens, but these things aren’t predetermined independently of any discussion of the merits of the change.

The misuse of “literally” and “actually” are especially dumb, but the original meanings haven’t been literally extinguished — nor I suspect have they even become an arcane, pedantic minority usage — and they might never be.

Show threadJeremy SmythMay 23, 2023

@gregeganSF @utterfiction

Words like "refute" and "literally" have a nuanced meaning that becomes lost when softened, and no other word has the same efficiency. I wonder is that because the generation that effects the change hasn't yet got the sophistication to (1) see the nuance and (2) value the lost nuance.

I aso wonder will we see similar effects with words like "resile" that aren't yet in common usage, but might fork in the same way when they meet the waves of varying language usage.

Show threadΣ(i³) = (Σi)²May 23, 2023
@jeremysmyth @gregeganSF @utterfiction the "generation", eh?
Show threadJeremy SmythMay 23, 2023

@SvenGeier @gregeganSF @utterfiction

Touché!

Show threadIan HolmesMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF @utterfiction well yeah, but there IS a “prescriptive vs empirical linguistics” debate; and if we ARE going to be picky about the meanings of words, I’d say that “Keep” and “Let” are definitely prescriptive words. Anyway, I’m voting “Keep” because I think (on the basis of this toot) you want an aesthetic judgment, not an earnest (and inevitably misguided) attempt to prescribe.
Show threadPaul Graham RavenMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF Voted to retain, but in the full knowledge that fighting semiotic drift is a King Canute sort of gig. Much as we might wish otherwise, people take the Humpty Dumpty approach to language, for reasons both fair and foul: "When I use a word [...] it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Show threadGreg EganMay 23, 2023
@PaulGrahamRaven Yes, but “people” includes everyone, including those who choose to retain the original meaning, and those who are swayed by public discussion of the merits of an incipient change. And just as there is no committee empowered to enforce the earlier or current usage of a word, there is no law of nature that guarantees that every linguistic trend that ever occurs will continue to completion. Some look as if they’re going to last for decades, then wither away in a year or two.
Show threadPaul Graham RavenMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF Yeah, fair point. I guess I take a more entropic view, which we can probably put down to my engagement with media theory...
Show threadJeremy SmythMay 23, 2023

@gregeganSF @PaulGrahamRaven
Sometimes it's cultural or generational; In my part of the world, "deadly", "savage", and "fire" are used as adjectives to describe something as exceptionally good, with the set of such words evolving over time.

Those words haven't lost their original meaning, so the context is important.

Show threadXenharmonic ForestMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF @PaulGrahamRaven interesting idea. I wonder if there are historical examples of words tending towards being diluted but later regaining their original meaning (more or less) exclusively
Show threadmarymessallMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF Doesn't matter what I think - language changes. But I don't have to like it.
Show threadGreg EganMay 23, 2023
@marymessall Language changes — but this process need not be immune to spirited discussions between the people who speak that language on the nature and merits of changes that happen to be underway.
Show threadMans RMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF @marymessall Change unchecked will produce a degenerate form of language wherein any word can take on any meaning, rendering it useless for concise, accurate communication. Guided change, meanwhile, lets a language adapt to changing circumstances, strengthening its utility as a vehicle for the exchange of ideas. The art, as ever, lies in finding the proper balance.
Show threadPiers CawleyMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF when folk are working from different sets of axioms, then what seems like a refutation from one side of the argument is a mere denial from the other. In such circumstances, refute is bound to slide in its meaning. It's not as if it hasn't happened to other absolutes over time. Just look at the earliest meaning of 'soon'.
Show threadWilliamMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF "reject" and "deny" are right there; the dilution of refute pisses me off.
Show threadJohn Carlos BaezMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF - in mathematics, at least, we cling to the old meaning. You may argue against my claim but only when your argument is correct have you refuted me. Weakening this meaning is like weakening the word "win" to mean "try to win". Imagine this in football.
Show threadΣ(i³) = (Σi)²May 23, 2023
@johncarlosbaez @gregeganSF I think specific fields using words in a more precise or carefully delineated way (i.e jargon) is not at odds with the "general" meaning of a word shifting. My physics training contains a well defined concept of "force" which is at odds with the expression "the forces of history"; but I understand what people mean with the latter and it wouldn't occur to me to tell historians how to use words when they're doing their job.
Show threadDebbie Goldsmith 🏳️‍⚧️♾️🇺🇦May 23, 2023
@gregeganSF Did you mean to have the poll say “refute ≠ disprove?” Because ≈ means “almost equal to,” no?
Show threadGreg EganMay 23, 2023
@dgoldsmith The two options are exactly what I meant them to be: choose between “refute” as [roughly] a synonym for “disprove” (i.e. what the quote from the OED in the post calls the “core meaning”), and the alternative of letting the meaning blur into the weaker sense, of mere denial.
Show threadDebbie Goldsmith 🏳️‍⚧️♾️🇺🇦May 23, 2023
@gregeganSF Sorry I misunderstood.
Show threadDebbie Goldsmith 🏳️‍⚧️♾️🇺🇦May 23, 2023
@gregeganSF I plead morning sleepiness.
Show threadMartin EscardoMay 23, 2023

@gregeganSF

The "new" meaning is just the old meaning it had in Latin.

Show threadPaulJun 2, 2023

@MartinEscardo @gregeganSF

And the meaning it still has in French...

Show threadchris martensMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF surprised how many prescriptivists responded to your poll! I favor the previous meaning personally, but stopping the evolution of language is a fool’s game
Show threadMark DominusMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF I think in many idiolects, “refute” and “rebut” have become confused or conflated.
Show threadRoy WigginsMay 23, 2023
@mjd @gregeganSF heck, lots of people seem to use "infer" and "imply" interchangeably