Often, people get upset when their words are used to support a conclusion that differs from their own. However, this does not mean that the person was quoted improperly nor does it mean that they have somehow been wronged. (First, let' establish how plagiarism is defined because it describes what improper quoting is. (Please go to this link, then read on). In fact, the reason for a quote is not to persuade the reader that the source is in agreement with the conclusion, but to provide credibility to the idea or conclusion being made.
I know that's a fine line, but the difference is important. For example, one could say that man-made global climate change is real, and use words stated by a Republican politician (who support the oil industry and have been extreme critics of the notion) saying that "man-made global warming is a sham," (Bob BlahBlah, R-ZZ) to point out that he did not say that global warming is a sham, but that he debates the notion that people have caused it. He obviously would not be happy about his words being used to support a paper that concludes that man-made global climate change is real, but a quote used in that manner does not in any way misquote the source, nor does it imply agreement by the source to the paper's conclusion.
However, if one were to say that, according to Bob Blahblah's own statements, global climate change is real, would be improper because you are making a statement about Bob using his words, not about your own conclusion and how they fit in.
Why am I stating this? Well, many people make a hobby (or perhaps a second career) out of nitpicking Jehovah's Witnesses and their writings like, The Watchtower, Awake!, and other books and tracts. These same people often quote these publications in order to make their own points that are in disagreement with the material. So to say that using scientific quotes to support a differing conclusion (or, for that matter, to draw a different conclusion on another's published research) means that it is also improper for detractors to quote Watchtower publications in order to help make their own argument. This works both ways.
Yet, I doubt that any JW detractors would bother to make quotes like, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania does not agree that evolution is a valid conclusion as to the origin of life. It is not necessary. The point isn't to persuade that the source agrees with your own conclusions, but to state that even those who disagree with your conclusions still make and concede arguments that help to establish your point. It is like saying that using the statement, "according to John Parker, the sun will rise tomorrow," can only be use to support a conclusion that the Earth rotates around the Sun. However, one could also use that to make the opposite argument. Still, in each case it is proper to state that John Parker said, "the sun will rise tomorrow."
Alas, it is more popular and fashionable to sound smart by agreeing with evolution than to even consider the possibility that life was created. I personally would consider it somewhat of a compliment that another views my work as important enough to use in their own work. It is not misquoting someone by using their statements in support of your own conclusions. It is misquoting someone to alter their statements to support your own conclusion or to make statements that the source agrees with your own point when they do not. Quotes are simply quotes. They are designed to say the following: So-and-so said this. No more, no less. I believe that the Watchtower and other JW publications follow this rule properly (and always have). I also believe that those who use the Watchtower's publications to argue contrasting points are (for the most part) using these quotes properly.
If you disagree with me, feel free to quote me when making your arguments. It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with you, just use my words and don't imply that I agree or disagree with your conclusions. Thanks.
