On 6/30/06, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey(a)att.net> wrote:
The quotation is from Max Fisch, a premier Peirce
scholar.
It was was added by another editor late in 2005. It makes
an important observation, it is relevant, and sourced. The
justification that LogicMan gives is partly speculative POV
and partly false, as the same point is not made just below it.
At any rate, there was no real discussion of its pertinence, and
no attempt to arrive at anything approaching a local consensus.
Was this block quote really necessary? Why can't we just say "Peirce
was primarily known as a scientist during his lifetime" and be done
with it? And what's the big deal? Either way this argument goes, the
outcome is relatively insignificant and the article as a whole won't
be affected much .