This question already has an answer here:
I'm confused about what references are always required.
My confusion is that in this answer on Meta, Borror0 wrote,
Obviously, not all claims have to be backed up. If the question can be answered with high school level science, no references are needed. The asker can always browse Wikipedia if is still skeptical.
I tried to question/clarify that via comments, but with no answer.
The thing is that it seems to me that my answer below contains nothing but high school level science (and therefore no references are needed).
I said that I'm willing to find references if someone wants to express any kind of actual specific scepticism. In this answer I make 5 claims, all of which IMO are based on high school science. Did you expect 5 sets of references as 'proof' of each claim, even though so far as I know no-one has or would dispute any of these claims?
I would sometimes, for claims which seem to me entirely uncontroversial, prefer to wait for someone to ask for a reference:
- It's not worth providing a reference whenever no-one is interested and/or if everyone already agrees
- More importantly, until I know the nature of the disagreement I don't know exactly what I'd be trying to prove: what argument I'd be trying to provide a counter-argument for.
I don't know how to satisfy someone who says [citation required] for the whole post, without saying which sentence[s] of the answer needs a citation, and/or what the object and nature of their scepticism is.
Here follows the deleted answer in question. The moderator's comment was,
You should know by now that, with skeptics, it's . meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/5 This is, at best a comment. I'm deleting this, because you should know better.
I have heard this argument time and again.
I heard it from my dietitian. I complained I was sleepy after lunch: she told me to eat smaller meals, more often ... starting with breakfast.
Having a more constant supply of fuel to your body is helpful when you want energy to work all day.
Human race started off as hunters.
Really. They might have started off as prey. And the reference which you cited about homo habilis said "scavenger".
Doesn't this mean that humans are genetically tuned to eat heavy meals once in one or two days?
No. Do you think we're genetically tuned to sit around on the cold, wet grass in the dark? Just because we had to put up with it doesn't mean it was good for us or that we're suited to it.
The presence of canines in human teeth indicates meat eating capability
Canine teeth are also present in horses, antelopes, etc.