1. What Do Philosophers Believe?David Bourget & David J. Chalmers - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 170 (3):465-500.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   49 citations  
Back    All discussions

Statistics on Wittgenstein
Dear authors,

Thank you for this very interesting and illuminative paper and a chance to get acquainted with it. I'm interested in one particular moment. How many philosophers did describe themselves as a 'followers' of Wittgenstein? I'm investigating the problem of unpopularity of Wittgenstein in contemporary Analytic philosophy and I would very appreciate if you could make the result of your survey on the question stated above available.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely yours,
Iurii Kozik

Statistics on Wittgentein
Reply to Iurii Kozik
The answer to your question can be found here.  73 out of 931 respondents described themselves at Wittgensteinian, the fourth largest number after Hume, Aristotle, and Kant.

Note that all sorts of information about the survey results can be found via the survey page: http://philpapers.org/surveys/.

Statistics on Wittgentein

A brief comment on the views expressed in “On the Conception and Design of the PhilPapers Survey”. I'll take the question on aesthetics as an example. (i.e. "Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?")

The paper says:

We wanted to include a question on aesthetics, but it wasn't clear what to include. We consulted with a number of philosophers working in the area, and there was a consensus that a question along these lines would be best. Of course "objective" and "subjective" can be given various interpretations, but experts preferred this formulation to formulations in terms of aesthetic realism or relativism.

This is a good example of how skewed and conservative a survey of this kind can be. The very notions of “aesthetic value”, “aesthetic realism”, etc, and even the word “aesthetic” itself, are open to serious question in the philosophy of art. (My own view, for example, is that the term “aesthetic”, and the very confused notions that go with it, are distracting hangovers from eighteenth century patterns of thought that now act as serious obstacles to any worthwhile advances in the theory of art.)

So the very question the survey asked about aesthetics – never mind the answers – sets a narrow, conservative agenda that rides roughshod over other ways of thinking. The survey designers say they “consulted with a number of philosophers working in the area”. But this simply means that a select group, who apparently hold very traditional views about the nature and purposes of art, decided what’s important and what is not - further entrenching traditional thinking.

The survey as a whole was shot through with conservatism of this kind – in large measure, no doubt, a consequence of attempting to hold a multiple choice philosophical “survey” in the first place – a bad idea from the start.