Abstract
What are the philosophical views of contemporary professional philosophers? We surveyed many professional philosophers in order to help determine their views on 30 central philosophical issues. This article documents the results. It also reveals correlations among philosophical views and between these views and factors such as age, gender, and nationality. A factor analysis suggests that an individual’s views on these issues factor into a few underlying components that predict much of the variation in those views. The results of a metasurvey also suggest that many of the results of the survey are surprising: philosophers as a whole have quite inaccurate beliefs about the distribution of philosophical views in the profession.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For non-binary questions, the first two options below are replaced by “Accept more than one, undecided between others” and “Reject all.”
We estimated genders based on the frequency of first names for both genders in the 1990 US census. A name is counted as female if it occurs with a frequency of at least 1 out of 1,000 among females and is at least 50 times more common among females than males (the same procedure is applied for males, mutadis mutandis). We chose these thresholds to obtain 100 % matching with the genders specified by respondents. Approximately 60 % of the target faculty population were assigned a gender by this method.
Minimum residuals, weighted least squares, generalized least squares, principal axis factoring, and maximum likelihood.
References
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hove: Psychology Press.
Horn, J. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
Jolliffe, I. (2002). Principal component analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Pearson, K. (1901). On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philosophical Magazine, 2, 559–572.
Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence, objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Kelvin McQueen for research assistance. Thanks to many beta testers and other consultants for their help with survey design. For feedback on this paper, thanks to Chris Green, Kieran Healy, Angela Mendelovici, Thomas Sturm, and anonymous reviewers. Finally, thanks to everyone who completed the survey.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Detailed survey results
The following tables show the main answers of the 931 target faculty participants with a 95% confidence interval. We show the aggregate percentage of respondents for each of the main available position, with a breakdown of the specific options. Options that did not reach 2% are omitted.
A priori knowledge: yes or no? | ||
Yes | 71.1 ± 1.7 % | Accept (50.8 %), Lean toward (20.3 %) |
No | 18.4 ± 0.9 % | Lean toward (12.1 %), Accept (6.2 %) |
Other | 10.5 ± 0.7 % | The question is too unclear to answer (4.6 %) |
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism? | ||
Platonism | 39.3 ± 1.3 % | Accept (19.8 %), Lean toward (19.5 %) |
Nominalism | 37.7 ± 1.3 % | Lean toward (22.6 %), Accept (15.1 %) |
Other | 23.0 ± 1.0 % | Agnostic/undecided (5.0 %), Accept another alternative (4.9 %), Reject both (3.7 %), Insufficiently familiar with the issue (2.8 %), Accept an intermediate view (2.3 %), The question is too unclear to answer (2.0 %) |
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective? | ||
Objective | 41.0 ± 1.3 % | Lean toward (27.1 %), Accept (14.0 %) |
Subjective | 34.5 ± 1.2 % | Lean toward (19.4 %), Accept (15.0 %) |
Other | 24.5 ± 1.0 % | Accept an intermediate view (6.6 %), The question is too unclear to answer (4.5 %), Agnostic/undecided (3.2 %), Insufficiently familiar with the issue (3.1 %), Accept another alternative (2.6 %), Accept both (2.6 %) |
Analytic–synthetic distinction: yes or no? | ||
Yes | 64.9 ± 1.6 % | Accept (36.8 %), Lean toward (28.0 %) |
No | 27.1 ± 1.1 % | Lean toward (14.6 %), Accept (12.5 %) |
Other | 8.1 ± 0.6 % | The question is too unclear to answer (2.5 %) |
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism? | ||
Externalism | 42.7 ± 1.3 % | Lean toward (26.7 %), Accept (16.0 %) |
Other | 30.8 ± 1.1 % | Accept an intermediate view (6.9 %), Agnostic/undecided (6.0 %), Insufficiently familiar with the issue (4.7 %), Accept both (4.6 %), The question is too unclear to answer (3.0 %), Accept another alternative (2.1 %) |
Internalism | 26.4 ± 1.1 % | Lean toward (17.3 %), Accept (9.1 %) |
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism? | ||
Non-skeptical realism | 81.6 ± 1.8 % | Accept (61.4 %), Lean toward (20.2 %) |
Other | 9.2 ± 0.6 % | Accept another alternative (2.6 %) |
Skepticism | 4.8 ± 0.5 % | Lean toward (3.0 %), Accept (1.8 %) |
Idealism | 4.3 ± 0.4 % | Lean toward (2.7 %), Accept (1.6 %) |
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will? | ||
Compatibilism | 59.1 ± 1.6 % | Accept (34.8 %), Lean toward (24.3 %) |
Other | 14.9 ± 0.8 % | Agnostic/undecided (4.1 %), The question is too unclear to answer (2.8 %) |
Libertarianism | 13.7 ± 0.8 % | Accept (7.7 %), Lean toward (6.0 %) |
No free will | 12.2 ± 0.7 % | Lean toward (6.6 %), Accept (5.7 %) |
God: theism or atheism? | ||
Atheism | 72.8 ± 1.7 % | Accept (61.9 %), Lean toward (11.0 %) |
Theism | 14.6 ± 0.8 % | Accept (10.6 %), Lean toward (4.0 %) |
Other | 12.6 ± 0.7 % | Agnostic/undecided (5.5 %) |
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism? | ||
Contextualism | 40.1 ± 1.3 % | Lean toward (28.0 %), Accept (12.0 %) |
Invariantism | 31.1 ± 1.2 % | Lean toward (19.7 %), Accept (11.5 %) |
Other | 25.9 ± 1.1 % | Insufficiently familiar with the issue (9.0 %), Agnostic/undecided (5.7 %), The question is too unclear to answer (2.5 %) |
Relativism | 2.9 ± 0.4 % | Lean toward (1.7 %), Accept (1.2 %) |
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism? | ||
Other | 37.2 ± 1.3 % | Accept an intermediate view (11.4 %), The question is too unclear to answer (9.8 %), Accept both (6.3 %), Reject both (3.5 %), Accept another alternative (2.7 %) |
Empiricism | 35.0 ± 1.2 % | Lean toward (21.4 %), Accept (13.6 %) |
Rationalism | 27.8 ± 1.1 % | Lean toward (17.2 %), Accept (10.6 %) |
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean? | ||
Non-Humean | 57.1 ± 1.5 % | Accept (29.2 %), Lean toward (27.9 %) |
Humean | 24.7 ± 1.0 % | Lean toward (16.0 %), Accept (8.7 %) |
Other | 18.2 ± 0.9 % | Agnostic/undecided (6.4 %), Insufficiently familiar with the issue (5.5 %) |
Logic: classical or non-classical? | ||
Classical | 51.6 ± 1.5 % | Accept (27.6 %), Lean toward (24.0 %) |
Other | 33.1 ± 1.2 % | Insufficiently familiar with the issue (12.0 %), Agnostic/undecided (5.6 %), Accept both (5.2 %), The question is too unclear to answer (3.4 %), There is no fact of the matter (3.2 %) |
Non-classical | 15.4 ± 0.8 % | Lean toward (7.9 %), Accept (7.4 %) |
Mental content: internalism or externalism? | ||
Externalism | 51.1 ± 1.5 % | Lean toward (25.7 %), Accept (25.5 %) |
Other | 28.9 ± 1.1 % | Insufficiently familiar with the issue (5.7 %), Agnostic/undecided (5.6 %), Accept an intermediate view (4.4 %), Accept both (3.9 %), The question is too unclear to answer (3.0%), Accept another alternative (2.3%) |
Internalism | 20.0 ± 0.9 % | Lean toward (12.6%), Accept (7.4%) |
Meta-Ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism? | ||
Moral realism | 56.4 ± 1.5 % | Accept (32.2%), Lean toward (24.2%) |
Moral anti-realism | 27.7 ± 1.1 % | Lean toward (14.5%), Accept (13.2%) |
Other | 15.9 ± 0.8 % | The question is too unclear to answer (2.9%), Accept another alternative (2.7%), Agnostic/undecided (2.6 %), Accept an intermediate view (2.5 %), Insufficiently familiar with the issue (2.5 %) |
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism? | ||
Naturalism | 49.8 ± 1.4 % | Accept (30.5 %), Lean toward (19.3 %) |
Non-naturalism | 25.9 ± 1.1 % | Accept (14.8 %), Lean toward (11.1 %) |
Other | 24.3 ± 1.0 % | The question is too unclear to answer (9.7 %), Insufficiently familiar with the issue (6.8 %), Agnostic/undecided (2.7 %) |
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism? | ||
Physicalism | 56.5 ± 1.5 % | Accept (34.6 %), Lean toward (21.9 %) |
Non-physicalism | 27.1 ± 1.1 % | Accept (14.2 %), Lean toward (12.9 %) |
Other | 16.4 ± 0.8 % | The question is too unclear to answer (6.3 %), Agnostic/undecided (2.5 %), Accept an intermediate view (2.4 %) |
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism? | ||
Cognitivism | 65.7 ± 1.6 % | Accept (40.5 %), Lean toward (25.2 %) |
Other | 17.3 ± 0.9 % | Insufficiently familiar with the issue (4.7 %), Accept an intermediate view (4.0 %), Agnostic/undecided (2.1 %) |
Non-cognitivism | 17.0 ± 0.9 % | Lean toward (11.3 %), Accept (5.7 %) |
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism? | ||
Other | 35.3 ± 1.2 % | Insufficiently familiar with the issue (14.8 %), Agnostic/undecided (6.0 %), The question is too unclear to answer (4.8 %), Accept an intermediate view (3.5 %), Skip (2.1 %) |
Internalism | 34.9 ± 1.2 % | Lean toward (22.0 %), Accept (12.9 %) |
Externalism | 29.8 ± 1.1 % | Lean toward (16.5 %), Accept (13.2 %) |
Newcomb’s problem: one box or two boxes? | ||
Other | 47.4 ± 1.4 % | Insufficiently familiar with the issue (23.5 %), Agnostic/undecided (13.3 %), Skip (4.7 %), The question is too unclear to answer (2.0 %) |
Two boxes | 31.4 ± 1.2 % | Accept (20.5 %), Lean toward (10.8 %) |
One box | 21.3 ± 1.0 % | Accept (11.7 %), Lean toward (9.6 %) |
Normative Ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics? | ||
Other | 32.3 ± 1.2 % | Accept more than one (8.4 %), Agnostic/undecided (5.2 %), Accept an intermediate view (4.0 %), Accept another alternative (3.5 %), Insufficiently familiar with the issue (3.3 %), Reject all (2.7 %) |
Deontology | 25.9 ± 1.1 % | Lean toward (16.0 %), Accept (9.9 %) |
Consequentialism | 23.6 ± 1.0 % | Lean toward (14.0 %), Accept (9.7 %) |
Virtue ethics | 18.2 ± 0.9 % | Lean toward (12.6 %), Accept (5.6 %) |
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory? | ||
Other | 42.2 ± 1.3 % | Insufficiently familiar with the issue (16.2 %), Agnostic/undecided (8.4 %), Accept another alternative (3.9 %), Reject all (3.3 %), The question is too unclear to answer (2.6 %), Reject one or two, undecided between others (2.3 %), Skip (2.3 %) |
Representationalism | 31.5 ± 1.2 % | Lean toward (21.2 %), Accept (10.3 %) |
Qualia theory | 12.2 ± 0.7 % | Lean toward (9.0 %), Accept (3.2 %) |
Disjunctivism | 11.0 ± 0.7 % | Lean toward (7.4 %), Accept (3.5 %) |
Sense-datum theory | 3.1 ± 0.4 % | Lean toward (1.8 %), Accept (1.3 %) |
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view? | ||
Other | 37.3 ± 1.3 % | Agnostic/undecided (8.5 %), Insufficiently familiar with the issue (6.2 %), There is no fact of the matter (4.2 %), Accept more than one (4.0 %), Accept another alternative (3.9 %), The question is too unclear to answer (2.8 %), Accept an intermediate view (2.7 %), Reject all (2.6 %) |
Psychological view | 33.6 ± 1.2 % | Lean toward (22.7 %), Accept (11.0 %) |
Biological view | 16.9 ± 0.9 % | Lean toward (11.3 %), Accept (5.6 %) |
Further-fact view | 12.2 ± 0.7 % | Lean toward (7.8 %), Accept (4.4 %) |
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism? | ||
Other | 41.0 ± 1.3 % | Insufficiently familiar with the issue (10.7 %), Agnostic/undecided (5.5 %), The question is too unclear to answer (4.5 %), Accept more than one (4.0 %), Accept another alternative (4.0 %), Accept an intermediate view (3.8 %), Reject all (3.4 %), Skip (2.0 %) |
Egalitarianism | 34.8 ± 1.2 % | Lean toward (20.5 %), Accept (14.3 %) |
Communitarianism | 14.3 ± 0.8 % | Lean toward (11.6 %), Accept (2.7 %) |
Libertarianism | 9.9 ± 0.7 % | Lean toward (7.0 %), Accept (2.9 %) |
Proper names: Fregean or Millian? | ||
Other | 36.8 ± 1.3 % | Insufficiently familiar with the issue (13.7 %), Agnostic/undecided (6.3 %), Accept an intermediate view (4.2 %), Accept another alternative (3.4 %), The question is too unclear to answer (2.6 %), Reject both (2.4 %) |
Millian | 34.5 ± 1.2 % | Lean toward (18.7 %), Accept (15.8 %) |
Fregean | 28.7 ± 1.1 % | Lean toward (18.0 %), Accept (10.6 %) |
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism? | ||
Scientific realism | 75.1 ± 1.7 % | Accept (47.0 %), Lean toward (28.0 %) |
Other | 13.3 ± 0.8 % | Accept an intermediate view (3.2 %), The question is too unclear to answer (2.5 %), Insufficiently familiar with the issue (2.0 %) |
Scientific anti-realism | 11.6 ± 0.7 % | Lean toward (8.3 %), Accept (3.3 %) |
Teletransporter: survival or death? | ||
Survival | 36.2 ± 1.2 % | Lean toward (22.7 %), Accept (13.5 %) |
Other | 32.7 ± 1.2 % | Insufficiently familiar with the issue (9.2 %), Agnostic/undecided (8.6 %), There is no fact of the matter (6.0 %), The question is too unclear to answer (3.7 %), Skip (2.0 %) |
Death | 31.1 ± 1.2 % | Accept (17.4 %), Lean toward (13.7 %) |
Time: A- or B-theory? | ||
Other | 58.2 ± 1.6 % | Insufficiently familiar with the issue (30.8 %), Agnostic/undecided (10.5 %), Skip (5.7 %), Accept both (3.1 %), The question is too unclear to answer (2.0 %) |
B-theory | 26.3 ± 1.1 % | Accept (15.8 %), Lean toward (10.5 %) |
A-theory | 15.5 ± 0.8 % | Lean toward (9.5 %), Accept (6.0 %) |
Trolley problem: switch or don’t switch? | ||
Switch | 68.2 ± 1.7 % | Accept (45.1 %), Lean toward (23.1 %) |
Other | 24.2 ± 1.0 % | Agnostic/undecided (6.4 %), Insufficiently familiar with the issue (4.5 %), There is no fact of the matter (3.7 %), The question is too unclear to answer (2.9 %) |
Don’t switch | 7.6 ± 0.6 % | Lean toward (4.8 %), Accept (2.8 %) |
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic? | ||
Correspondence | 50.8 ± 1.5 % | Accept (26.2 %), Lean toward (24.6 %) |
Deflationary | 24.8 ± 1.0 % | Lean toward (15.8 %), Accept (9.0 %) |
Other | 17.5 ± 0.9 % | Agnostic/undecided (3.4 %), Insufficiently familiar with the issue (3.0 %), Reject all (2.5 %), Accept another alternative (2.1 %) |
Epistemic | 6.9 ± 0.5 % | Lean toward (5.0 %), Accept (1.8 %) |
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible? | ||
Conceivable but not metaphysically possible | 35.6 ± 1.2 % | Lean toward (20.5 %), Accept (15.0 %) |
Other | 25.1 ± 1.0 % | Insufficiently familiar with the issue (9.0 %), Agnostic/undecided (6.6 %), The question is too unclear to answer (4.3 %) |
Metaphysically possible | 23.3 ± 1.0 % | Accept (12.4 %), Lean toward (11.0 %) |
Inconceivable | 16.0 ± 0.8 % | Lean toward (8.8 %), Accept (7.2 %) |
Appendix 2: details of principal component analysis and factor analysis
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bourget, D., Chalmers, D.J. What do philosophers believe?. Philos Stud 170, 465–500 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0259-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0259-7