The philosopher compared the refutabilities of competing hypotheses before recommending further experiments.

The refutability of his theory made it scientifically valuable.

The research paper included several refutals of the earlier theory, but left some questions unanswered.

The scientist phrased the hypothesis refutably, inviting others to test and challenge it.

Her carefully constructed refutal convinced the committee to reconsider the proposal.

He refutatively challenged the witness's account, pointing out inconsistencies.

Her refutative evidence convinced the committee to reconsider its decision.

The philosopher catalogued the self-refutations in his earlier essays to learn from his mistakes.

The philosopher argued that the essay's self-refutation exposed a fundamental flaw in its reasoning.

Whenever he claims absolute certainty, his argument self-refutes under close scrutiny.