It sounds more like a politician who predicts a situation and backs it up with good-sounding logic. But then, when the situation doesn't happen as predicted, the politician finds an excuse that doesn't invalidate his justifications.
Or a scientist that claims all objects are pulled with equal acceleration by gravity, yet when he drops a pillow and a brick from a balcony, the brick hits the ground first.
Pardon me if you're being sardonic and I'm not detecting it, but you're pointing out the flaw is this form of criticism yes?