There is certainly the possibility of this and it happens quite often here on Medium and in other venues for discussion, but there is a difference between the incongruent interpretations of the same facts and using sources that are of differing calibers to support different conclusions.
Case in point, I’ve had many men explain to me how there is overwhelming academic proof for the belief that humans have always been warlike and violent. But the sources that they cite as definitive don’t actually prove that assertion. The experts that they tout are willfully disregarding the fact that there is no archeological evidence of mass violence before 13,000 years ago and they rely on other flimsy “proofs” of the rightness of their thesis. Saying that the substantive body of proof for just the opposite comes from “doves” and “feminists” doesn’t discount any of that just because it comes from people with a different view of the world because they also have the goods to back up that view — unlike these guys, who really don’t.