> The economics of Mad Max echo those that followed the fall of the Roman Empire. During the Dark Ages, precious resources became scarce, and men from regions devastated by famine swarmed more prosperous lands.
No it isn't. I can't stand citation culture. My wife does courses as part of her Nursing practice and has to write papers full of citations in the modern style. You can't even say it was a sunny day without referencing an official weather report. The thing is, most of the references you see in books and articles are to sources no more authoritative than the one citing them. If you're dealing with research then yes, sources and standards of evidence are important, but in many cases it creates an illusion of authority.
This is an article on the Internet, not a historical thesis. If you doubt something it says, say so and say why you doubt it. If you think it's worth challenging, it should be worth some time checking for yourself or at least explaining why you doubt it. Just tossing two word over the fence is lazy and provocative without making any actual contribution to the conversation.
Sometimes I think it's worse even than that. As you say, providing a supporting citation gives a gloss of authority and acceptance, whether in an academic paper or on a chat forum. The reader should ideally appraise the cited source and decide if they agree. I doubt this happens in even 1% of cases.
Ideally I'd like to see citations that both support and disagree with the point being made. Then I could take a more balanced overview and decide my level of trust in the evidence.
However this would lead to a systematic review for every sentence written/read.
To my mind this is a major problem in the peer-review scientific process, and I don't know of a decent solution. This is where I'd like to see a really potent AI: systematic reviews.
I'm somewhat skeptical of the quoted assertion as well as I think it's overly generalised, but e.g from the source you give, from part 5:
"When the Western Roman Empire collapsed in the Fifth Century the effect on material culture and technology in Europe was devastating. Without the Empire to fund major engineering projects and large scale infrastructure, many of the skills and techniques involved in monumental buildings and complex technologies were forgotten and lost. The break down of long distance trade meant people became increasingly self-sufficient and produced what they needed locally."
I know this had positive side effects, I did read the article (thanks, great read) but the collapse of the western empire was no picnic. But now we're having a reasoned discussion, whereas 'citation required' is a conversational brick wall.
A less meme-y way would be to say: I'm sceptical (and even seem to recall having read just the opposite), please provide more than a simple assertion to convince me.
Citation required.