comments left by on your user page moved to talk page A while back I put out a call for input into the Peirce entry from Peirce professionals Are your very recent and very extensive additions to that entry in response to my call I am an economist not a philosopher by trade and so am NOT qualified to do what you are attempting I was first drawn to Peirce by his logic Believe it or not I do not find pragmatism very interesting I cleaned up the references and am quite comfortable with the details of Peirce s life having studied Brent s bio As the article now stands I am responsible for most of its content outside of section 2 A fair bit of what I did was to revise extensively the shabby prose I found 2 3 months ago I am intrigued by the semeiotic but by no means can claim to understand it well at all even though I own a copy of Liszka 1996 I became fascinated by how Peirce had more serious experience as a scientist than any other philosopher in the canon Very recently I have been trying to come to terms with his system of 3 categories One would suppose that Americans by virtue of their national history their economic conditions and their intensely pragmatic outlook I submit that the profession truest to the American character is engineering would not be well disposed to speculative philosophy and to any metaphysical reasoning whatsoever In other words I once believed that philosophy in the USA would have unfolded very much along the lines of what Quine would have preferred But Peirce shows that that has not been the case Moreover Peirce was Peirce all while being a serious scientist and a splendid logician It is also to Peirce s credit that he attracts scholars whose writings and personalities I very much like Max Fisch Ken Ketner Arthur Prior Arthur Burks Hintikka Nathan Houser Peter Hare RIchard Robin Peircians are a happy robust lot