ON ASKING FOR CITATIONS (JUSTIFICATIONISM) There is a difference between questio

ON ASKING FOR CITATIONS (JUSTIFICATIONISM)

There is a difference between questioning experimental data, and questioning asserted theory.

We can ask for data for cites – that’s criticism, but we can’t ask for arguments for cites – that’s justificationism.

Best answer is not to request cites but to offer alternative, more parsimonious hypotheses- what we call criticism, and see if the original argument survives.

While dishonest people ask for cites in order to create a justificationary rhetorical fallacy, what most honest people mean when they ask for cites is that they want to know more, so that they can judge for themselves.

My position on these questions is driven empirically: papers are almost always *shit* (always actually), and so the only works worth recommending are books that integrate hypotheses into contextual knowledge.

I’d get into why that’s true but that would take me a while.

So, ask for, and supply:

1) cites for experimental data,

2) counter argument for theory,

3) books for understanding.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.