Ah, yes, by turning the argument into a premise, you're effectively 'blackboxing' knowledge, so it doesn't get criticized. You're quite right.

We could cite lots of examples where new ontological constructs better explain reality. For example, the development of mathematics is fundamentally a development of ontology. But because it is such a powerful tool, it can be used for devastating effect. And we could cite tons of examples of that, too.

Believing an agent of government is ontologically different from ordinary people is necessary for the establishment of taxation and coercion. The idea that races and genders have certain ontological differences (souls, for example, or authority) has been in the core of racism and sexism. The paradox of the Cosmological Argument can be resolved by creating a new ontological category: God (the immovable mover). Because a god can 'resolve' the paradox, it inhibits further scrutiny and the realization that the whole argument is a fallacy.

Erroneous ontological premises can lead, and often do lead, to cognitive dissonance. It's funny how ideas well established in natural sciences have a talent for being misinterpreted and misused in social sciences.