Supervisor: Brian Leiter <>
Announced end of poll: January 29, 2018
Poll has not yet ended.
This is a public poll.
Actual votes cast: 889
Number of winning choices:
Condorcet completion rule:    (What is this?)
Minimax
CIVS Ranked Pairs
Schulze/Beatpath
MAM
Condorcet-IRV
Bottom-2 Runoff
Proportional

Poll description

Below are some currently "hot" topics/areas/methods in philosophy. Some may be of lasting significane, but almost all come up when philosophers discuss "fads" that ought to fade away because they lack real philosophical merit. Rank order these areas below from the most "faddish" (i.e., ought to fade away) to the least.

Result

1. Epistemic injustice  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
2. Experimental Philosophy  loses to Epistemic injustice by 388–312
3. Critical Race Theory  loses to Epistemic injustice by 334–323, loses to Experimental Philosophy by 351–340
4. Effective altruism  loses to Epistemic injustice by 414–289, loses to Critical Race Theory by 364–270
5. Grounding  loses to Epistemic injustice by 404–279, loses to Effective altruism by 335–314
6. Footnotes to Rawls  loses to Epistemic injustice by 444–232, loses to Grounding by 327–285
7. Epistemic modals  loses to Epistemic injustice by 441–201, loses to Footnotes to Rawls by 292–248
8. Knowledge first  loses to Epistemic injustice by 440–206, loses to Epistemic modals by 259–249
9. Contextualism  loses to Epistemic injustice by 444–199, loses to Knowledge first by 280–253
10. Non-naturalist normative realism  loses to Epistemic injustice by 459–181, loses to Contextualism by 272–248
11. Reasons  loses to Epistemic injustice by 449–189, loses to Non-naturalist normative realism by 254–247
12. Formal epistemology  loses to Epistemic injustice by 472–194, loses to Reasons by 271–270
13. Political realism  loses to Epistemic injustice by 440–160, loses to Formal epistemology by 253–230
14. Prioritarianism  loses to Epistemic injustice by 457–124, loses to Political realism by 218–204

For simplicity, some details of the poll result are not shown. 

Result details

  1234567891011121314
1. Epistemic injustice   -388 334 414 404 444 441 440 444 459 449 472 440 457
2. Experimental Philosophy   312 -351 373 400 424 428 437 461 458 466 487 457 449
3. Critical Race Theory   323 340 -364 359 398 365 383 383 400 392 405 372 399
4. Effective altruism   289 326 270 -335 334 366 356 382 390 379 399 377 371
5. Grounding   279 304 291 314 -327 337 339 373 361 395 400 357 349
6. Footnotes to Rawls   232 255 218 260 285 -292 285 313 335 333 349 316 343
7. Epistemic modals   201 221 227 217 242 248 -259 291 287 309 325 303 290
8. Knowledge first   206 225 214 240 224 261 249 -280 295 303 297 281 288
9. Contextualism   199 216 212 223 223 249 234 253 -272 295 294 282 282
10. Non-naturalist normative realism   181 204 193 192 207 200 217 203 248 -254 277 255 231
11. Reasons   189 201 219 235 191 231 223 227 257 247 -271 262 249
12. Formal epistemology   194 165 201 206 187 206 183 227 243 240 270 -253 247
13. Political realism   160 149 170 161 180 188 176 196 205 199 226 230 -218
14. Prioritarianism   124 144 137 144 166 143 167 172 188 205 210 214 204 -

Ballot report

Individual ballots will be shown after the poll closes.

  • Rank 1:
      Epistemic injustice (3): vs. 1 : (334 - 323) vs. 5 : (388 - 312) vs. 8 : (404 - 279) vs. 2 : (414 - 289) vs. 6 : (444 - 232) vs. 9 : (440 - 206) vs. 4 : (441 - 201) vs. 0 : (444 - 199) vs. 13 : (449 - 189) vs. 10 : (459 - 181) vs. 7 : (472 - 194) vs. 11 : (440 - 160) vs. 12 : (457 - 124)
  • Rank 2:
      Experimental Philosophy (5): vs. 1 : (351 - 340) vs. 2 : (373 - 326) vs. 8 : (400 - 304) vs. 6 : (424 - 255) vs. 4 : (428 - 221) vs. 9 : (437 - 225) vs. 0 : (461 - 216) vs. 10 : (458 - 204) vs. 13 : (466 - 201) vs. 12 : (449 - 144) vs. 11 : (457 - 149) vs. 7 : (487 - 165)
  • Rank 3:
      Critical Race Theory (1): vs. 8 : (359 - 291) vs. 2 : (364 - 270) vs. 4 : (365 - 227) vs. 9 : (383 - 214) vs. 0 : (383 - 212) vs. 13 : (392 - 219) vs. 6 : (398 - 218) vs. 11 : (372 - 170) vs. 7 : (405 - 201) vs. 10 : (400 - 193) vs. 12 : (399 - 137)
  • Rank 4:
      Effective altruism (2): vs. 8 : (335 - 314) vs. 6 : (334 - 260) vs. 9 : (356 - 240) vs. 13 : (379 - 235) vs. 4 : (366 - 217) vs. 0 : (382 - 223) vs. 7 : (399 - 206) vs. 10 : (390 - 192) vs. 11 : (377 - 161) vs. 12 : (371 - 144)
  • Rank 5:
      Grounding (8): vs. 6 : (327 - 285) vs. 4 : (337 - 242) vs. 9 : (339 - 224) vs. 0 : (373 - 223) vs. 10 : (361 - 207) vs. 11 : (357 - 180) vs. 12 : (349 - 166) vs. 13 : (395 - 191) vs. 7 : (400 - 187)
  • Rank 6:
      Footnotes to Rawls (6): vs. 9 : (285 - 261) vs. 4 : (292 - 248) vs. 0 : (313 - 249) vs. 13 : (333 - 231) vs. 11 : (316 - 188) vs. 10 : (335 - 200) vs. 7 : (349 - 206) vs. 12 : (343 - 143)
  • Rank 7:
      Epistemic modals (4): vs. 9 : (259 - 249) vs. 0 : (291 - 234) vs. 10 : (287 - 217) vs. 13 : (309 - 223) vs. 12 : (290 - 167) vs. 11 : (303 - 176) vs. 7 : (325 - 183)
  • Rank 8:
      Knowledge first (9): vs. 0 : (280 - 253) vs. 7 : (297 - 227) vs. 13 : (303 - 227) vs. 11 : (281 - 196) vs. 10 : (295 - 203) vs. 12 : (288 - 172)
  • Rank 9:
      Contextualism (0): vs. 10 : (272 - 248) vs. 13 : (295 - 257) vs. 7 : (294 - 243) vs. 11 : (282 - 205) vs. 12 : (282 - 188)
  • Rank 10:
      Non-naturalist normative realism (10): vs. 13 : (254 - 247) vs. 12 : (231 - 205) vs. 7 : (277 - 240) vs. 11 : (255 - 199)
  • Rank 11:
      Reasons (13): vs. 7 : (271 - 270) vs. 11 : (262 - 226) vs. 12 : (249 - 210)
  • Rank 12:
      Formal epistemology (7): vs. 11 : (253 - 230) vs. 12 : (247 - 214)
  • Rank 13:
      Political realism (11): vs. 12 : (218 - 204)
  • Rank 14:
      Prioritarianism (12): vs. 11 : (204 - 218)

Feel like voting on something else? Try one of these public polls:

Loading...