Comment by alphazard

In coursework, references are often a way of demonstrating the reading one did on a topic before committing to a course of argumentation. They also contextualize what exactly the student's thinking is in dialogue with, since general familiarity with a topic can't be assumed in introductory coursework. Citation minimums are usually imposed as a means of encouraging a student to read more about a topic before synthesizing their thoughts, and as a means of demonstrating that work to a professor. While there may have been administrative reasons for the citation minimum, the concept behind them is not unfounded, though they are probably not the most effective way of achieving that goal.

While similar, the function is fundamentally different from citations appearing in research. However, even professionally, it is well beyond rare for a philosophical work, even for professional philosophers, to be written truly ex nihilo as you seem to be suggesting. Citation is an essential component of research dialogue and cannot be elided.

> Citing a paper to defend your position is just an appeal to authority

Hmm, I guess I read this as a requirement to find enough supportive evidence to establish your argument as novel (or at least supported in 'established' logic).

An appeal to authority explicitly has no reasoning associated with it; is your argument that one should be able to quote a blog as well as a journal article?

Huh? It's quite sensible to make reference to someone else's work when writing a philosophy paper, and there are many ways to do so that do not amount to an appeal to authority.

> Citing a paper to defend your position is just an appeal to authority (a fallacy that they teach you about in the same class).

an appeal to authority is fallacious when the authority is unqualified for the subject at hand. Citing a paper from a philosopher to support a point isn't fallacious, but "<philosophical statement> because my biology professor said so" is.