> I see examples of people demanding citations for reasoning that is part of a work, of people just not understanding something, or of only really being able to blindly follow based on province or authority without trying to reconcile back to what they know.

That’s a tricky one for me because I see a lot of utility in asking for sources:

a) Curiosity. Maybe I really want to know how this person came to believe what they did even if I’m pretty sure they’re wrong.

b) Challenge. A version of the Socratic Method, helping them learn through questioning their assumptions.

c) Learning. A genuine quest for knowledge, that perhaps might yield more unique or varied results than Google.

d) Depth. Possibly helping others in a public thread (or the author) realize that it might be an epistemically illegible argument requiring greater scrutiny, discussion or evidence.

I get that asking for sources can also be lazy or ill intentioned, but for the most part I don’t mind it.

I think you misunderstand OP. The purpose of citations is to prove facts. The argument made based on those facts does not need a citation.

Much of the time it isn't fair to ask for citations even for specific facts, but that's a separate problem.

> I think you misunderstand OP. The purpose of citations is to prove facts.

Those cases are covered by b)

But the person you're replying to pointed out other, non-adversarial reasons to ask for citations (which depending on the tone of the question, may be misinterpreted)

This is actually a huge pet peeve of mine; when people ask for a citation for reasoning, and then smugly declaring victory when no such citation is provided, as if you even could "cite" analysis.

It's a bit more than a pet peeve for me. It's exactly shirking any ability to perform or judge analysis, instead granting total deference to "authorities" that should be cited to provide credibility.

That's especially fair, as there's a good-faith way of engaging with such things that they've avoided: "Could you expand on this please?"

Even expert analysis isn't evidence. At its best, an expert can give you a sense of the range of possibilities, which might include things you never thought of. But actually knowing what's happening in a specific case requires evidence.

It seems like being clear about what you're doing (are you just discussing possibilities or trying to claim something specific) would go a long way in avoiding such misunderstandings.

(And I of course don't know which cases you're talking about, so I'm just talking about possibilities.)

Source?

Early in college I got the sense from some professors (likely English professors) that I, a student, couldn't be trusted to just state something in a paper. Instead, I was supposed to find an instance of someone else writing that same idea somewhere and quote and cite them.

I was pretty relieved when I got to Philosophy, where no one gave a damn about anything but the argument.

I can sort-of see how that might come about, if the purpose of the philosophy class was to practice making arguments, using philosophy merely as providing something to argue about, but one thing I have learned about it (and most other things, for that matter) is that if you don't find out if your idea has been floated before (spoiler: it has, at least if it has any merit), and, most importantly, what responses have already been made, the class will spend all its time splashing around in the well-stirred shallows.

At first, it seems odd to me that your English professors acted in the manner you describe, but I guess most of them have chosen to ride the criticism wagon, rather than the creative one.

They were teaching you a scientific writing mindset. Philosophy is different in this regard, as it is the science of rational thought.

I think you almost have to go a step further than that; you have to teach people about debate, how to debate, and decorum. Increasingly folks seem to rely on moral argumentation when debating despite our world becoming increasingly less moral (in the context of right vs wrong). Instead, our world mostly reflects shades of grey but our argumentation style doesn't reflect that change.

2 + 2 = 4 [citation needed]