The preliminary results can be found here:

http://philpapers.org/surveys/

This page contains basic data on answers to the Survey and the Metasurvey, broken down by population and by area of specialization. It also contains demographic data on answers to the background questions. There is also a discussion of the survey design and a highly preliminary discussion of results. In the not-too-distant future we will add more data concerning interquestion correlations, as well as correlations of answers with geography, age, and gender, and a factor analysis. There is a new discussion forum for surveys here.

[T]he process of evolution -- natural selection, the mechanism that drove the first naked, replicating molecule into the diversity of millions of fossil and living forms -- is a mechanism of staggering simplicity and beauty.

The idea of natural selection is not hard to grasp. If individuals within a species differ genetically from one another, and some of those differences affect an individual's ability to survive and reproduce in its environment, then in the next generation the "good" genes that lead to higher survival and reproduction will have relatively more copies than the "not so good" genes. Over time, the population will gradually become more and more suited to its environment as helpful mutations arise and spread through the population, while deleterious ones are weeded out. Ultimately, this process produces organisms that are well adapted to their habitats and way of life.

1. (some) naturally occurring variations improve the organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a given environment; 
2. these functional improvements (often qualitative) are someway translated into a quantitative, statistically significant difference in reproductive rates;
3. there is an abstract, mathematical relation between higher reproductive rates and the spread of favorable variations (the outcome).

Here is a summary of some upgrades we are planning for the near future. Please let us know what you think by replying to this message.

Embedding of PhilPapers lists and categories

A system to allow “my works” and other PhilPapers lists (including category listings) to be embedded on third-party pages. The main anticipated use would for individuals to embed “my works” on their personal page or departmental page. This could make it a lot easier for non-tech-savvy people to keep a list of online papers up to date.

Events module

We feel that there is a need for a event announcement service. Conference, talks, calls for papers, etc would be associated with PhilPapers Areas and could be monitored in a variety of way (on the site, via RSS, or by email). Monitoring could be done based on topic and/or geographic area.

Interest groups

Interest groups would be membership-based discussion forums with additional facilities, e.g. sharing of draft papers between members. Reading the posts in and submitting to an interest groups' forums could be limited to members or open to the public, at the choice of the administrator. Membership would by invitation of the group's administrators and/or current members. Groups would also have a shared bibliography.

Improved search facilities

We plan to improve the search facilities in a number of ways. We will index the full text of articles wherever possible. We will also implement a more powerful yet simpler search engine with such features as automated stemming, synonym conflation, and spell-checking. (We plan to use the Sphinx MySQL Engine, for those of you who know about it.)

Annotations

We plan to allow users to attach short texts to PhilPapers entries and provide an interface for searching and organizing these texts and their associated entries. Annotations will be private.

The position review project

This will be a poll of philosophers' positions. See this thread for more information.

I've got a strictly sociological question about an epistemological doctrine: rationalist infallibilism. Rationalist infallibilism, defined somewhat tendentiously,holds that a relatively wide range of (i) analytic and (ii) synthetic a priori propositions can be infallibly justified or absolutely warranted. Here I'll define absolute warrant as a proposition that is warranted to such a degree that entails its truth and precludes its falsefood.

Are there any current  proponents of rationalist infallibilism who have made sustained attempts to defend this position in the literature? I can think of a few philosophers who have defended  either thesis (i) (e.g., Putnam) or (ii) (e.g., Burge, Lewis, Parent, Bealer), but none who defend both these theses. Are there any prominent or semi-prominent philosophers who still defend both these theses and can thereby be described as rationalist infallibilists (as I describe the position)? Or is rationalist infallibilism a completely dead position? 

I would like to ask each of you two questions.

We all have some goals that I will call professional goals.  For instance, you want to publish such-and-such a paper of yours or institute such-and-such a change in your department or university.  Those are fairly specific goals.  A less specific one might be the goal of making a significant contribution to the profession by advancing the discussion of a certain topic.

We also have various goals having to do with teaching.  For instance, you might want to mentor more PhD students or significantly improve your ability to help your students write better.

I hope that those two characterizations are not too vague.  My first question is: what pure research goals do you have that do not fall into either of the above two categories (at least not primarily; naturally, there will be plenty of overlap)?

An outrageous example: you want to solve the mind-body problem, the determinism-free will problem, and liar paradox (all this afternoon, of course).  A less ambitious but vague example: you want to understand the notion of agency better.

My second question: do you think you will accomplish those pure research goals?