Any fallacies committed here?

Recently, regarding a Brexit topic happening in the UK right now I wrote a statement about Carl Sagan where he said that “In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” ― Carl Sagan

They then said that's because of the basis of religion and politics is ideology and belief and therefore any supporting evidence or lack of it is irrelevant.

Did any of us make any fallacies here or were there none at all?

Thanks.

The only problem I have with the above is evidence or lack thereof does influence belief as well as ideology. Not as much as we like, but it certainly is not "irrelevant." No fallacies that I can see, just perhaps a misunderstanding of psychology.

Sagan is basically stating his own anecdotal experience of the distinctions between scientific methodology and the lack thereof in ideology, belief, politics and religion. Something we can all pretty much agree on.

"I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” There's no overall error in reasoning because he is merely stating his own powers of recollection and experience. The qualifier is his own admission that he cannot recall it.

If he was making the overall claim that religious people and politicians never change their minds, we might have a hasty generalization. We also might readily introduce evidence and instances where both politicians and religionists change their minds. Admittedly, not with the frequency of scientists, but we do know that religionists become atheists, moderates become conservatives, and issue flip-flopping is a common occurrence among politicians. So as an overall claim it is fallacious. But that's not what Sagan is saying.

The responder is basically affirming that ideology, belief, politics and religion are not evidence-based, and therefore cannot be evaluated as equal methodologies in the scientific sense. In fact, he goes on to claim that evidence is irrelevant, and that's where the argument fails. We all know that evidence and facts are extremely relevant to some politicians and religionists even to the point of exaggeration, manufacturing erroneous claims, and a whole other array of special pleadings. But now we're get into the realm of various cognitive biases inherent in most ideological propositions.

Cogito ergo Non credo