Source: Any book on the philosophy of science, Decartes Meditations, Spinoza's Ethics, the whole German Idealism movement from Kant's Critique of Judgement to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, Heidegger's Being and Time, French Postructuralists like Foucault, Lyotard, Deleuze. This isn't a topic you just ask for "source" when you are completely unaware of the whole historical development of the idea you're asking for

People who talk about "source" in the case of arguments haven't read a philosophy book in their life. Prove me wrong.

From the perspective of the common sense you're not wrong, but on a theoretical plane not only is the appeal to authority not an argument, but also philosophers themselves never just give opinion but arguments which are supposed to mentain their power indifferent of the domain they are used in. And also in general most theoretical physicists make appeal to philosophy, for the simple fact that to have a yet proven theory means to go beyond the subjective evidence you can empirically prove and to generalise, aka. do metaphysics. Actually everytime you go beyond pure experience by making a universal claim like "Dogs like this" ; "Women are like this", you are making a universal and so metaphysical claim. There is no escape metaphysics and so there is no escape philosophy. Hope this helps since it's my last reply.

Edit* Also I don't want to discredit anyone's knowledge but everyone who trully wants to understand the basic problems of modern science should read Hume.

Maybe because Philosophy searches for the metaphysical presuppositions that stand at the roots of every discipline?

Ironic since most philosophers reject IQ as an overall prerequisite for intelligence.

Philosopher*