Some preliminary results of the PhilPapers Survey and Metasurvey are now available. There are all sorts of interesting data. Among issues of interest to readers of this blog in the Survey results, for example: 56% of target faculty responding favor (i.e. accept or lean toward) physicalism, while 27% favor nonphysicalism (for respondents as a whole, the figure is 54:29). A priori knowledge is favored by 71-18%, an analytic-synthetic distinction is favored by 65-27%, Millianism is favored over Fregeanism by 34-29%, while the view that zombies are conceivable but not metaphysically possible is favored over metaphysical possibility and conceivability respectively by 35-23-16% respectively.
The Metasurvey results are also very interesting. For quite a few questions, mean estimates differ from the actual figures by around 20%. For aesthetic value, the mean normalized estimate (setting "other" to zero) favor "subjective" over "objective" by 68:32, but the actual figures favor "objective" by 54:46. For the analytic-synthetic distinction, estimates are 50:50, while the actual figures are 70:30. Something similar applies to laws of nature: estimates favor non-Humeanism by 52:48, actual figures by 70:30. Nonphysicalism is mildly underestimated (28% compared to 32%) as is rationalism (33% compared to 44%). Estimates predict consequentialism, invariantism, and nominalism to be the leading views on their questions, but actual results favor deontology, contextualism, and Platonism. I got plenty wrong myself.
At this point, we have made available basic data the distribution of Survey and Metasurvey answers, broken down by basic population (faculty, graduate student, etc) and by area of specialization. We will make more data available before long. We have also released basic demographic data, and we have included some thoughts on the Survey's conception and design and on the results. We are making survey respondents' own responses available to them, and before long we will allow these to be made public where appropriate.
We encourage you to look closely at these results, to play around with the various breakdowns, and to discuss the results in the PhilPapers Survey discussion forum.