# How do you argue with a science denial meme? Memed responses may be counter-productive for responding to science denial online

## TL;DR

This study explores how to respond to science denial memes, finding that literal explanations are more effective than analogical responses.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a novel experimental evaluation of response strategies to science denial memes on social media.

## Key findings

- Literal explanations were rated more understandable than analogical responses.
- Participants found literal explanations more effective and persuasive.
- Memed rebuttals may be counter-productive for countering science denial.

## Abstract

Science denial ‘memes’ are a viral form of communication that attempt to undermine complex scientific ideas using memorable soundbites. These memes misrepresent the scientific content they are ‘debunking’, making responding to them challenging. To identify common strategies, we analysed Twitter/X responses to the anti-evolution meme ‘why are there still monkeys?’. Strategies included literal explanations about why the reasoning behind the meme is flawed, and analogies that mirror the original meme to varying degrees (e.g. in structure and/or domain). We evaluated different response strategies using an experiment with participants from the United States who either endorsed or denied evolution. Participants rated their understanding of the original meme and different response strategies, and how effective and persuasive they found them. Across participants, literal explanations were rated more understandable, effective and persuasive than analogical responses. Memed rebuttals may thus be a counter-productive strategy for responding to science denial online.