Is there a name for the logical fallacy of assuming that if one can't personally understand something, it must not be valid?
For example, I've heard people refuting scientific evidence on the grounds that the science behind it is incomprehensible to them. (Even though the science is perfectly comprehensible to scientists.)
And sometimes I notice myself refuting an esoteric philosophical argument on the grounds that since I can't understand it, it can't possibly prove anything.
Is there a formal name for this kind of fallacy? I want to call it the "fallacy of failure to comprehend" but I don't see this used anywhere. Is there another name for it?
In an attempt to tease out what I'm after, I'll give an exaggerated example. TV talk show host Jane is interviewing guest Dick:
"Nothing in the wisdom of the ancient Greeks is relevant to the modern world," says Dick.
"What about the Pythagorean Theorem?" asks Jane.
Dick: "Remind me what that was?"
Jane: "Calculating a diagonal length by taking the square root of the rectangular dimensions squared."
Dick: "I have no idea what 'square root' and 'squared' mean, no doubt because they are too archaic to be of any use to us today."
Hearing this, Jane and the entire viewing audience know it is useless to argue the point. Dick is clearly incapable of comprehending it, as his rebuttal proves. He is not arguing from ignorance, he is demonstrating a personal ignorance. It's not that he doesn't trust the available evidence behind Jane's point, but that he doesn't have enough wit (or vocabulary or education or equanimity or whatever) to even recognize her point. And on that ground he refutes it.
Wouldn't this be considered a logical fallacy of some kind? If so, what would it be called?