We are living in a time when people are increasingly skeptical of “research.”You see it everywhere—memes saying “trust the science” met with eye rolls, dismissal, or outright hostility.

And honestly, that skepticism didn’t come out of nowhere.

The problem is not science itself. The problem is that many people cannot distinguish between ideologically driven “research” and evidence-based, peer-reviewed scholarship.

That distinction matters—especially in areas like family law, domestic violence, and parental alienation—where real lives are affected.

What Is Evidence-Based Research?

Evidence-based research follows a process:

It is peer-reviewed by experts in the field

It is replicable (others can test and reach similar conclusions)

It is transparent in its methodology

It is open to criticism and debate

Science is not about consensus—it is about argument, testing, and refinement.

Even minority viewpoints are valuable when they engage with evidence.

A good example is Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist who has challenged aspects of mainstream climate change models. Whether one agrees with him or not, Lindzen engages with data, physics, and atmospheric science. He raises nuanced critiques that require serious engagement.

Yet, instead of being debated on the merits of his arguments, he is often dismissed or marginalized—which raises an important question:

Are we defending science, or protecting a narrative?

What Is Ideological “Research”?

Ideological research starts with a conclusion—and then works backward.

Instead of asking “What does the evidence show?”, it asks:“How can we prove what we already believe?”

This kind of work often:

Relies on selective data (cherry-picking)

Avoids contradictory evidence

Uses loaded language instead of neutral analysis

Is published in non-peer-reviewed or ideologically aligned platforms

Appeals to authority or moral framing, rather than evidence

It may look like research—but it does not function like science.

The “Crime Filter” in Domestic Violence Research

One of the clearest examples of this problem comes from Donald Dutton in his book Rethinking Domestic Violence.

Dutton explains what he calls the “crime filter.”

Many government reports and advocacy-based studies claim that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of domestic violence. But these conclusions often rely heavily on:

Here’s the issue: police data reflects who gets arrested, not necessarily who is violent.

This introduces systemic bias:

Men are more likely to be arrested in domestic disputes

Women’s violence is less likely to result in arrest

Dual-arrest situations are often simplified into male-perpetrator narratives

So the data becomes filtered—not by reality—but by institutional response.

Dutton’s critique is not ideological—it is methodological. And importantly, his concerns are supported by broader research, including findings compiled in the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, which draws on thousands of peer-reviewed studies.

This is what evidence-based correction looks like:Not denial—but deeper, more accurate analysis.

When Research Becomes Advocacy: The Case of Parental Alienation

The issue becomes even more concerning in the field of parental alienation.

Joan Meier has conducted work aiming to discredit parental alienation, often framing it within a narrative of “gendered violence.”

However, there are significant concerns:

Her work has been criticized for methodological bias

It relies on selective case sampling

It has struggled to gain traction in mainstream peer-reviewed academic journals

Despite this, her findings are widely cited by advocacy groups and some institutional bodies as definitive proof that parental alienation is “debunked.”

At the same time, parental alienation itself has been:

Studied across disciplines

Replicated in thousands of peer-reviewed studies

Documented internationally

Many of these studies are also accessible through the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project.

Yet, advocates like myself are often told:“You just have sources—so do they.”

Why People Are Losing Trust in “Research”

This confusion is exactly why public trust is eroding.

When ideological advocacy is presented as science:

People notice inconsistencies

They see conclusions that don’t match lived experience

They feel dismissed when questioning narratives

Events like COVID-19 pandemic intensified this dynamic. Messaging like “trust the science” often came without explanation or transparency, which made it feel more like authority than inquiry.

Science should invite questions—not shut them down.

What Makes My Approach Different in Family Law Reform

When I say I rely on evidence-based research, I am not asking for blind trust.

The sources I use are peer-reviewed

The findings are replicable

The methodology is transparent

The conclusions can be explained and defended

If you challenge the data—I can walk you through it.

That’s the difference.

Final Thought: Science Is Not a Slogan

Science is not a political weapon.It is not a slogan.And it is not owned by any ideology.

It is a method—a process of testing reality.

If we want to restore trust in research, we need to stop pretending all “studies” are equal.

And until we are honest about that, people will continue to lose faith—not just in bad research, but in science itself.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)