This week I came upon a bizarre claim in an Associated Press article: “The federal law that President Joe Biden signed at the end of 2021 followed allegations of human rights abuses by Beijing against members of the ethnic Uyghur group and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. The Chinese government has refuted the claims as lies and defended its practice and policy in Xinjiang as fighting terror and ensuring stability.” If AP was using the established meaning of “refute,” it was claiming that these allegations were lies and China had proven they were. The article didn’t say what this proof was.

However, it was called to my attention that some dictionaries give a new, second meaning for “refute.” Merriam-Webster gives two definitions: (1) to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous. (2) to deny the truth or accuracy of. Dictionary.com, on the other hand, gives two definitions that both entail proof: (1) to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge. (2) to prove (a person) to be in error.

The meanings of words change. Someday “refute” may mean the same as “rebut” without ambiguity. The present situation, though, puts anyone who uses the word at risk. If you say that a claim has been refuted, are you saying that someone has shown it’s in error, or merely that someone claimed it’s wrong? The definition of refutation as disproof has a longer record, and I think most people still understand it that way. It’s confusing to use “refute” in the new sense when so many synonyms (rebut, disagree, challenge, etc.) are unambiguous.

Many people reject the new way of using “refute”; here’s an an article on vocabulary.com as an example. I strongly suspect the new usage comes from muddle-headed journalists who can’t tell the difference between assertion and proof. (“The leader of my party said the opposition’s claim is false. That refutes the claim beyond a shadow of a doubt!”)

At best, referring to a bare statement of disagreement as a “refutation” is ambiguous and confusing, and writers should avoid it. The other question is whether the new usage has made the word in its original meaning too confusing to use. I don’t think so. As far as I can tell, it’s just sloppy “news” articles that are spreading the new definition, and the people who scribble them probably don’t even know they’re using the word in a new way. There’s no reason to give in to them.