I read this whole page and I'm still very confused about this mad scientist rant I just read about. What's the point of arguing with "such said such thing" and "such other said the opposite" if you don't actually explain why this is important.
I would assume the import would be obvious to the intended audience, like if a philosopher commented on a discussion of async vs threaded parallelism asking why it wasn't explained why parallelism itself was important...
To explain the remark of majormajor a bit further:
A philosopher can translate the attribution of the quotes to certain arguments or ‘thinking structure’ of the mentioned philosopher. It’s important not to see the argument and it’s supporting discourse in isolation but in the context given by the quoted philosopher’s work. This may look like name-dropping but is essentially a important as specifying if a certain mathematical trick only works in a Hilbert space.