ANTICIPATED RESPONSES OF THE CJE
Research scientists welcome constructive criticism. That is how science develops and improves. If they disagree with criticism of their work, scientists respond to the criticism in an academic and scholarly manner. Based on past responses of parental alienation critics to critiques of their articles, it is anticipated that the CJE and those who support their agenda will not respond to this analysis in a constructive manner.
Rather, they will react in some of the following ways:
Rather, they will react in some of the following ways:
- They will play victim to gain the compassion of the public. This is a standard science denial technique.
- They will claim that this analysis is a defamation of their character.
- They will make ad hominem attacks on parental alienation professionals. This is a standard science denial technique.
- They will say that this critique is not peer reviewed.
- They will claim that a consensus of experts agrees with them. This is a standard science denial technique.
- They will reiterate their points without addressing any of criticisms of Child Safety First.
- They will claim that parental alienation experts and the mental health and legal professionals that support parental alienation are in it for the money.
- They will claim a conspiracy theory about journals accepting articles by parental alienation experts and not their articles.
- They will have other “experts” come to their defense and write letters that praise Child Safety First.
They will not, however, address the serious concerns that we raise in our analysis because there is no answer for the extensive misinformation that permeates Child Safety First.