Undergrads vs target faculty in philpapers

Still loading...

	A	B	C	D	E
1	Topic	Target faculty plurality view (coarse) percentage support	Change in support for that view from undergrads		% of undergrads insufficiently familiar
2	A priori knowledge		15		0.5
3	Abstract objects		20		5.5
4	Aesthetic value		15		1.8
5	Analytic-synthetic		13		7.8
6	Epistemic justification		1.5		13.8
7	External world		31		1.4
8	Free will		18		0.9
9	God		10		0
10	Knowledge claims		-3		16.1
11	Empiricism vs rationalism		-7.4		3.2
12	Laws of nature		13		14.7
13	Classical or non-classical logic		14		21.2
14	Mental content externalism vs internalism		12		18.9
15	Moral realism vs anti-realism		12		8.8
16	Metaphilosophy naturalism vs non-naturalism		1.4		16.1
17	Physicalism or non-physicalism		4		5.1
18	Moral cognitivism vs non-cognitivism		22		14.7
19	Moral motivation internalism vs externalism		-3		15.2
20	Newcomb		15	Most undergrads and many faculty don't know the problem. Ratio of support for two boxing: one boxing goes from 16:18 to 31:21	52.5
21	Deontology/consequentialism/virtue ethics		10		5.5
22	Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia, representationalism, or sense-datum?		13		27.6
23	Personal identity: bio, psych, or further-fact		3		15.7
24	Communitarianism/libertarianism/egalitarianism		9		12
25	Proper names: Frege vs Mill		4.5	Majority for "other" among undergrads, vs third in faculty	36.4
26	Scientific realism vs anti-realism		21		9.2
27	Teletransporter: life or death		0.3		21.2
28	A- or B- time		8.3	Majority other for both groups	46.1
29	Trolley problem switch or not		17		12.9
30	Truth: corr, deflationary, epistemic?		20		10.6
31	Zombies, inconceivable, conc but meta impossible, meta possible?		-0.3		7.4
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100