Sourcing in the Science disciplines

In essay form, let me review the importance of quoting sources in the science disciplines:

We shall first make an assumption: meaningful dialogue is only possible within a discipline. New ideas are inadmissable candidates for meaningful dialogue until they can be integrated into the structured geneology of theory, history and personality that constitutes a discipline. This is a lengthy process which requires general academic acceptance.

Without integration and acceptance, a new idea has no representation: a worker in the discipline will say 'the idea has no sources', and will ignore it. New ideas consequently get dropped. A recognised personality from a particular discipline, can, however, take the new idea on board, if it is not his own, and attempt to integrate it into the structure of his discipline. This is not always succesful, but it does ensure that the new idea has some representation as it becomes partially integrated into a discipline through the discipline's geneology of personality (but not initially through geneology of theory or history).

This self-referential manner of working, common to all sciences, ensures that ideas do not flood a particular discipline and cause a log-jam in debate and research. One draw-back is that the rate of change of evolution of a discipline is affected in inverse proportionality to the novelty of the ideas that are presented before it. Finally, we must question the assumption presented above (top) which assumes that disciplines are structured. It is worthwhile to note that any one idea that can be isolated from a structured discipline can be traced to a point where no sources are evident. Consequently, at the level of ideas, disciplines are on a par with unsourced, extra-disciplinary ideas; which seems to indicate that the structure of a discipline, that a discipline itself, is not a representational form of its content.