[william-newman]

I don't think amateur-vs.-scientist-vs.-genius is a very good set of names for the distinctions he is trying to make, especially if you're going to reach back to Herschel's time. To pick some influential folk who fit into that period, consider Babbage, Darwin, Mendel, Pasteur, Boltzmann, Cantor, Semmelweis, the Wright Brothers, and Wegener. Consider also their rivals and critics. (Since I included a number of controversial folk, various of their rivals and critics are still remembered.) We can come up with generalizations about what the influential folk did right, but I don't think it works to say that, e.g., they were scientists while their critics and rivals were amateurs.

Or consider all the advice in an essay at the level of Hamming's "You and your research." It doesn't seem to me to be useful to try to boil down the multiple properties discussed there into boolean predicates "is this person a scientist" or "is this person an amateur," or even to try to choose particular points in those multidimensional property spaces as typifying "scientist" or "amateur" or "genius."

I wholeheartedly approve of people writing about some of the principles in this essay, notable the ones often summarized as "genius is 99% perspiration" and "a month in the lab can often save a day in the library." Those are very important principles, and very often people don't appreciate them enough. But trying to define the amateur/scientist/genius terminology on top of those principles doesn't seem very sensible.