Acceptable is basically something that is not controversial.
Science liberates the human spirit, while religion enslaves it.
There needs to be another argument that supports the premise
You can have it as long as it has a supporting argument that has cogent premises
Can there be arguments with controversial premises?
If a cogent sub-argument exists elsewhere, it is acceptable to cite it.
Highly dangerous because some people have not read what you have read
Argument as arm wrestling, not as finding the truth
But it is important to remember the argument and to take note that this is not an
If they still want to back up some more, either explain the cogent argument or just tell
them to read the reference
It is also acceptable to cite someone else's cogent argument.
Premises that are true as a matter definition
e.g. thirteen is prime number
Meaning of words, connection of ideas, etc.
With this, sometimes you will need to do some clarification of the definitions themselves
You should be clear of what you mean by something
If they define it in another different way than the A Priori definition, just tolerate and not
Apply charity if someone else is using the term
Knowledge that no one will seriously disagree with you about
e.g. human beings have hearts
May be time relevant specially if it is based on science
You don't need to footnote when you're writing a paper
It will be hard to cite this actually
Just that everybody around you agrees doesn't make it a common knowledge (e.g.
democracy being the best government, state and church being one)
Some are culturally or temporally conditioned
When someone makes a claim of what they have perceived not their impressions (what they
Reasonableness rather than the truth
e.g. people who first heard about the Platypus may not have believed it
May have some limitation or biased
Intentionally to deceive for whatever purpose