Referencing is very useful in science, offering support for evidence, reasoning, ethos, leads to a more concise text, and other advantages.
But, quoting the words of another, which is widely used in the humanities and philosophy, to convey, e.g., gravitas and erudition, seems often futile and counter-effective in science. One should rather trust his own words, and calculations. A worrisome point-of-failure in papers, and not by the authors!
In general, also, inlined quotes have a lifetime, as anything else. The authors' paper may still be correct, but a quote inlined in the text, can fail sooner. The more the number of inlined quotes, the higher the probability of failure. The authors and readers would be better served by sumarizing each view, and referencing, providing credit where credit is due, and citations.
On the other hand, some say that quoting the words of another is good because it makes science more humane, more fragile, more context-dependent, more understandable. Others think that it mostly shows the futility of quoting in science, where previous views are treated as immobile scientific truths, whereas they should be considered in history terms only, not providing a scientific guidance of what would be truth necessarily. In science [1,2], YES means NOT YET FALSE, and NO means MAYBE TRUE. The ground shifts.
[1] Presentation Science and the Search for Truth: Scientific Method
[2] Presentation The Big Idea in Physics and Science: The Absolute
In the humanities it is as you said essential, conveying knowledge of other's points of view from which you then, hopefully, extrapolate one of your own. Rightly or wrongly its considered scientific and a deterrent to opinion.
I have read 19th century tomes, Freud for example, and his failure to reference, etc, is irritating and, for a modern academic, undermines his views. I know or can guess who he'd been reading but knowing would be better.
RE: "quoting ... is widely used in the humanities to convey gravitas and erudition"
I can't speak for humanities in general but that is not how quotation is generally used in philosophy. It is used, for example, to show that what one claims about another’s position, is warranted, based on his own words. Or to present a passage for analysis and discussion. Or to show that one’s position is similar to or different from another that may already be under discussion in the literature. Or to provide context. Mere referencing would result in extra work for the reader; quotation may help him decide whether it’s worth his while to look up the original work (similar to the purpose served by abstracts).
And consider the role played by the quotation with which I began this answer.
Hello Stanley Wilkin , Karl Pfeifer : Thank you. I added to the main text that, in general, inlined quotes have a lifetime, as anything else. The authors' paper may still be correct, but a quote inlined in the text, can fail sooner.
The more the number of inlined quotes, the higher the probability of failure. The authors would be better served by sumarizing each view, and referencing, providing credit where credit is due, and citations.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences