On anti-commercial bias

[Ed Rooney]

In article <19970925032000.XAA22120 at ladder02.news.aol.com>,
timjcathym at aol.com (TIMJCATHYM) wrote:

> I find it strange, this bias against "commercialization" of the insect
> business. (Big  Snip)    Amazingly this bias existed
> 150 years ago.  Alfred Wallace was a poor scientist that supported his work
> by selling specimens,  Darwin was a heir.  Look who got credit for the
> discovery of natural selection.
>
> Tim McNary


     Tim, you have a very good point about the bias against
commercialization, as if anything done for profit is automatically suspect
and to be shunned.  (A bias I carry myself occasionally, I'll admit)
   However your historical example doesn't hold up.   Charles Darwin wrote
an extensive treatise that explored the far reaching implications of the
theory.  Alfred Wallace, excellent naturalist though he was, did not
expand on what he saw as a simple, self-evident (to him) observation of
nature.  He also acknowleged Darwins work as more complete and thorough
than his own.  Wallaces work on Natural Selection is more of a footnote
for a very good reason.


      Ed Rooney
--

The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.