Misquotations

An interesting discussion on a list_serv to which I belong regarding the misattribution of quotes. There is a fair amount of energy invested in the conversation for a topic that on the surface seems to be but a matter of marginal carelessness. Why?

It seems to me that this is a subset of the broader topic of what constitutes critical thinking. A couple of key characteristics of critical thinking, among many, is accuracy and precision.

When do we use a quote? Often for decoration or to extend a line of thought, similar to the function of a metaphor or an analogy. When used in this way, while it would be nice to have a quotation properly sourced, it is not critical given its function which is to be a spark to the tender of creativity as it were.

But often times a quotation is used as a form of argument, essentially an appeal to authority. In that instance, it becomes reasonably important for the quote to be both accurately relayed and properly sourced.

So when someone quotes something that does not have a good provenance, they are trying to harvest the authority of an individual (a logical fallacy but one that isn’t always wrong) without bothering to make sure that that authority is legitimate. The reader is either insulted by laziness or deceived by mendacity.

Additionally, when someone uses a quote in a lax and imprecise fashion it is, to use an economics concept, a form of signaling. If someone is unreliable in small details, can they be considered reliable on more important matters (falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus)?