[rubbingalcohol]

To say an argument has been "debunked" implies that the argument holds no credibility, or the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm right, you're wrong." It is an attempt to shut down a discussion and provide fodder for ad-hominem attacks against those who dare to disagree.

In other words, The Atlantic should be ashamed to run a headline like this because it is antithetical to rational discussion.

[dang]

Ok, but what's a better word? Refuted? The article makes clear that Schurger's counterargument has been generally accepted.

Edit: given the link in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21486117 I suppose we can say "questioned".

[empath75]

I don't think it's even refuted. It's just redefining what 'decision' is and using that to somehow make the case for free will.

Previously they were saying that the start of the neural activity was when a decision was made, and now they are saying that the decision is only made when a particular threshold is reached, but either way the decision is a result of neural activity that began before the person was consciously aware of it. They're just redefining terms to reach the result they wanted.

[naasking]

The assumption that conscious awareness is necessary for an exertion of free will is also a mistake. The original conclusion was chock full of assumptions. No one debated the specifics of the observed data, what is debatable is the meaning of that data.

[NickM]

If the whole argument was based on an experimental result, and that experiment has now been found to be fundamentally flawed and the results of the experiment invalidated, then it seems entirely fine and rational to say that the argument has been debunked.

[buboard]

or, the argument is against the evidence of one experiment. similar protocols using other techniques have provided evidence against the idea that behavioral decisions can be unpredictable.

[PavlovsCat]

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=debunked

Seems to be used all the time for things that aren't a scam, a hoax, a lie or something like that.

This is one of the example sentences Mirriam-Webster gives for the word debunk:

> The results of the study debunk his theory.

[superkuh]

You're not wrong. Especially since, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2019/10/31/th... "The Ghost of Libet Returns"

[nabla9]

Debating on headline that are often chosen or changed by editors to be controversial or more dramatic is waste of time. Magazines do it routinely.

HN sometimes changes headlines to be more correct. Propose one.

[pmoriarty]

It's not just in the headline. It's in the article's body as well:

"The topic is immensely complicated, and Schurger's valiant debunking underscores the need for more precise and better-informed questions."