> As many of those who have read academic papers know, even claims with citations are often suspicious.
Yes, I've encountered that numerous times. One problem is the chain of strengthening citations; citation X supposedly proves Y, but it cites something less conclusive that cites something that has very weak evidence for Y.
Then there's the self-citation: citation X shows Y, but citation X is by the same author and cites something else by the same author and there's nothing solid at the bottom of the chain.
Then there's the authority-strengthening: a journal cites a less-rigorous journal which cites a book that cites a random person.
The point is that a citation is only the starting point for evaluating a claim. (The other conclusion is that I wasted a lot of time in the library researching claims for stupid internet arguments.)
Yes, I've encountered that numerous times. One problem is the chain of strengthening citations; citation X supposedly proves Y, but it cites something less conclusive that cites something that has very weak evidence for Y.
Then there's the self-citation: citation X shows Y, but citation X is by the same author and cites something else by the same author and there's nothing solid at the bottom of the chain.
Then there's the authority-strengthening: a journal cites a less-rigorous journal which cites a book that cites a random person.
The point is that a citation is only the starting point for evaluating a claim. (The other conclusion is that I wasted a lot of time in the library researching claims for stupid internet arguments.)