Some of the primary consequences [of relying on dubious explanations/arguments] are:
Having flawed foundations, leading to incorrect conclusions elsewhere. For example, as detailed later, having the wrong understanding of fiat power in policy debate leads to incorrect beliefs about topicality requirements for cases.
Having weak foundations, leading to abandonment of the correct conclusion when the explanation is shown to be false. Referencing the poison oak as an example, suppose that a village child who has never seen the effects of poison oak is only told that it does not have evil spirits (or just stops believing in evil spirits). That child might then believe that it’s okay to touch the poison oak. Thus, it’s best not to base your conclusions on weak foundations.
Being unable to convince others of the correct conclusion. Again referencing the poison oak example, suppose someone who did not believe in evil spirits and had never heard of poison oak was told that it was harmful because it contained evil spirits. That person would not be convinced of either the explanation or the conclusion because he does not see the reasoning as compelling.
My old article on “Witch Doctor Theory” seems relevant here: