"Refutability" is a more general concept than epistemic legibility, in my opinion. One can (at least attempt) to refute abject nonsense that doesn't actually me

"Refutability" is a more general concept than epistemic legibility, in my opinion. One can (at least attempt) to refute abject nonsense that doesn't actually mean anything by saying "that's abject nonsense, that doesn't actually mean anything." Other arguments might depend on facts about the world, but attempt to hide those dependencies. A Gish Gallop is one such form of argument. These can be refuted, but the interlocutor has to do a lot of work to highlight the factual errors, and the reasons that the argument depends on them. An epistemically legible argument does that part of the work for the other party, so the only thing they must do is show which premises are wrong, or which logical dependencies are invalid. The pre-existing term I've heard that comes closest is the term with the opposite meaning, "Logical Rudeness." https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4317660/suber_rudeness.html?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4317660/suber_ru...