Refutation texts, rhetorical tools designed to reduce misconceptions, have garnered attention across four decades and many studies. Yet, the ability of a refutation text to change a learner's mind on a topic needs to be qualified and modulated. In this critical review, we bring attention to sources of constraints often overlooked by refutation text researchers. Methodological issues we identified centered on problems of using a single topic (or very few) within a study, the role of testing in conceptual change, and the durability of change beyond an immediate posttest. Theoretical issues included the interpretation of attentional measures, what knowledge domains lend themselves to refutation, what makes a text refutational, and unexplored assumptions about how conceptual change occurs. We sought to clarify how refutation texts may function as an antidote to misconceptions and how future research on refutation texts can better inform understanding of this phenomenon.