How are citations not the fallacy of "appeal to authority"?
Citations are basically an attempt at X.509 or Certificate Authority "root of trust": follow the certs until you find one we all agree is "trustyworthy".
Except in this case, that "someone" may or may not be provable, because the root of trust could potentially go back centuries.
I'm not impugning the work of historians, I realize this is part of what they do: follow the citations, cross-correlate, and seek "the truth" through painstaking research.
But outside of extensive historical effort, it seems like a pretty flimsy strategy for contentious topics.
Citations are basically an attempt at X.509 or Certificate Authority "root of trust": follow the certs until you find one we all agree is "trustyworthy".
Except in this case, that "someone" may or may not be provable, because the root of trust could potentially go back centuries.
I'm not impugning the work of historians, I realize this is part of what they do: follow the citations, cross-correlate, and seek "the truth" through painstaking research.
But outside of extensive historical effort, it seems like a pretty flimsy strategy for contentious topics.