There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Refuting
This article doesn't draw an adequate distinction between refutation in terms of logic and in terms of the colloquial sense or between rebuttal and refutation in the rationalist sense[edit]
I think it should note that the info in the box basically refers to a colloquial usage of the term and not how the term would be used in terms of a strictly rationalist sense(as in science, logic, math) which would conform more to the other definition provided in the main text of the article. What the colloquial definition the article refers to as "refuting" would be "rebuttal" strictly speaking in terms of logical/scientific debate/inquiry/research.
I think it is important this distinction be drawn since this is likely an area of confusion for the lay logician/rationalist.LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)