Dogmatic Fallacy

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.