All this time I have been talking about the nature of discourse and how to formulate an argument. There are some implied premises in this and it's worth discussing what they are.
1 Statements should be logically coherent. (link)
2 Judgement should be reserved for when there is enough information.
3 No explanation is better than a bad explanation. We are very bad at holding to this and should not worry to much if we are creating incomplete models but we must be able to adapt and/or abandon them.
4 We should except our incomplete explanations and views pragmatically (understanding the limits to which they work and what is wrong with them)
5 There must be a certain amount of assumption for any given statement. These are the unchallenged premises. It can only be things that are either necessarily true or that all involved in the discussion agree to (at least hypothetically).
6 The difference between assertions and assumptions.
7 Our limits both a reasoners and the limit of our view points lead. To certain consistent mistakes that we must compensate for. OR Avoid Fallacies.