The fallacy of constructing an argument within a
UniverseOfDiscourse, that excludes all evidence against it.
It is just too easy for a religion or ideology with a sufficiently complicated
UniverseOfDiscourse to fall into this trap (on the other hand, it might be no trap, but rather a useful device to keep out opposing ideas).
This fallacy can take the form:
- If you have evidence of X against dogma D, you have not understood D.
- If you have evidence of X against dogma D, X must be wrong.
- If you have evidence of X against good dogma D, you are bad. (See also EvilOrStupid)
- If you have evidence of X against dogma D, X does not apply to D by definition. (Example. Asserting the ParallelLinesPostulate in a non-Euclidean geometry).
Furthermore Sophia is dust. This is an example of dogmatism because there is no further discussion.
Example on this wiki:
IfXpIsntWorkingYoureNotDoingXp.
In other words - "<foobar> is flawless. Bad <foobar> is really <barfoo> - so don't criticize anything about <foobar>, since you erred by doing <barfoo>."
General example:
ConspiracyTheories
This is an extreme special case of a
MentalFixedPoint.
A reference that is based somewhat on this fallacy:
Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren: Anleitung zum subversiven Denken, Hubert Schleichert, C. H. Beck, 1999, ISBN 3406511244.
"How to discuss with fundamentalists without losing your mind. An introduction to subversive thinking." - The translation of the title is a good description of this little booklet. Very good reading. If somewhat cynical, this book is a perfect guide to dealing with nasty politics without falling into the trap of using it. German language only.
Related to
TautologicalDefinitionFallacy,
NoTrueScotsman and
GrandConspiracy,
IfYouDontLikeItYouDontUnderstandIt.
See also
EvilOrStupid,
ReligionOrCult
See
FallaciousArgument