in some circles, such as a certain sort of rationalist, this is considered anathema; by permanently shutting off exploration of certain rhetorical branches we take on risks with massive potential downside
the thing is, it's a bet; a well-reasoned one, but a gamble nonetheless
in many senses, it's an irrational one. from an epistemic risk management perspective, it's the wrong choice; a sort of metaphysical Faustian bargain
a bargain made at the altar of reason itself; which do you value more, robustness or incisiveness? ultimately you must choose.