So with not quite 400 votes in the poll, here are the "top 26" (after #26, rather than #20, there was a bigger drop-off in the votes):
| 1. W.V.O. Quine (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices) |
| 2. Alvin Goldman loses to W.V.O. Quine by 131–100 |
| 3. Roderick Chisholm loses to W.V.O. Quine by 145–90, loses to Alvin Goldman by 117–90 |
| 4. Wilfrid Sellars loses to W.V.O. Quine by 142–80, loses to Roderick Chisholm by 110–106 |
| 5. Timothy Williamson loses to W.V.O. Quine by 148–100, loses to Wilfrid Sellars by 122–118 |
| 6. Ernest Sosa loses to W.V.O. Quine by 152–95, loses to Timothy Williamson by 123–107 |
| 7. Tied: Fred Dretske loses to W.V.O. Quine by 156–78, loses to Ernest Sosa by 121–90 Edmund Gettier loses to W.V.O. Quine by 160–78, loses to Ernest Sosa by 114–105 |
| 9. Donald Davidson loses to W.V.O. Quine by 158–53, loses to Fred Dretske by 120–93 |
| 10. William Alston loses to W.V.O. Quine by 164–70, loses to Donald Davidson by 99–96 |
| 11. Tied: Laurence BonJour loses to W.V.O. Quine by 164–64, loses to William Alston by 88–82 Nelson Goodman loses to W.V.O. Quine by 163–50, loses to William Alston by 98–96 |
| 13. Robert Nozick loses to W.V.O. Quine by 169–52, loses to Laurence BonJour by 102–90 |
| 14. Gilbert Harman loses to W.V.O. Quine by 176–41, loses to Robert Nozick by 94–90 |
| 15. John McDowell loses to W.V.O. Quine by 168–58, loses to Gilbert Harman by 95–89 |
| 16. Tyler Burge loses to W.V.O. Quine by 170–49, loses to John McDowell by 91–88 |
| 17. Alvin Plantinga loses to W.V.O. Quine by 173–62, loses to Tyler Burge by 99–73 |
| 18. Barry Stroud loses to W.V.O. Quine by 173–39, loses to Alvin Plantinga by 95–78 |
| 19. Keith Lehrer loses to W.V.O. Quine by 175–42, loses to Barry Stroud by 81–78 |
| 20. Crispin Wright loses to W.V.O. Quine by 183–34, loses to Keith Lehrer by 84–76 |
| 21. Keith DeRose loses to W.V.O. Quine by 179–41, loses to Crispin Wright by 82–78 |
| 22. Robert Audi loses to W.V.O. Quine by 176–42, loses to Keith DeRose by 81–72 |
| 23. David Armstrong loses to W.V.O. Quine by 179–28, loses to Robert Audi by 70–67 |
| 24. Paul Boghossian loses to W.V.O. Quine by 179–40, loses to David Armstrong by 74–66 |
| 25. Richard Feldman loses to W.V.O. Quine by 175–47, loses to Paul Boghossian by 75–72 |
| 26. Philip Kitcher loses to W.V.O. Quine by 176–33, loses to Richard Feldman by 74–72 |
Hilary Kornblith, Susan Haack, and Richard Jeffrey were not that far off the "top 26."
As with the earlier poll on moral & political philosophers, the poll has mainly sociological–and only partly philosophical–interest. On the one hand, it seems to me clearly right that Alvin Goldman is the preeminent living epistemologist, though I, personally, would have ranked him ahead of Quine, whose strong showing can't be based on the wide influence of his conception of "naturalized epistemology" except as a target that others attack! The strong showing of Chisholm, Sellars, Sosa, Williamson, Gettier, and Dretske is also what I would have, more or less, expected. After that, I'm too uninformed to have a strong view either way.
Alas, there were some omissions from the pool. Carnap's contributions to what is now known as formal epistemology were in the post-WWII period (I failed to realize that), though in general poll responents didn't favor formal epistemology (Jeffrey got the most votes, and did not make the "top 26"). The youthful-looking John Hawthorne is, in fact, over 50, and he likely would have made the top 20 had he been included. (Yale's Keith DeRose did the best of younger philosophers over 50 included in the poll.) A couple of readers pointed out that David Lewis's "Elusive Knowledge" was an important paper in stimulating contextualism, and that he also wrote significant papers for the development of formal epistemology. This is indeed true, but it is fair to say that Lewis was not "primarily" an epistemologist, and there is always a risk that "David Lewis" (like "W.V.O. Quine" perhaps) would simply rise to the top in virtue of his singular importance in Anglophone philosophy of the post-war period.
Comments are open for comments on the sociological and philosophical aspects of the results.
Leave a Reply to Steven Hales Cancel reply