Abstract
While the empirical evidence pointing to a gender gap in professional, academic philosophy in the English-speaking world is widely accepted, explanations of this gap are less so. In this paper, we aim to make a modest contribution to the literature on the gender gap in academic philosophy by taking a quantitative, corpus-based empirical approach. Since some philosophers have suggested that it may be the argumentative, “logic-chop**,” and “paradox-mongering” nature of academic philosophy that explains the underrepresentation of women in the discipline, our research questions are the following: Do men and women philosophers make different types of arguments in their published works? If so, which ones and with what frequency? Using data mining and text analysis methods, we study a large corpus of philosophical texts mined from the JSTOR database in order to answer these questions empirically. Using indicator words to classify arguments by type (namely, deductive, inductive, and abductive arguments), we search through our corpus to find patterns of argumentation. Overall, the results of our empirical study suggest that women philosophers make deductive, inductive, and abductive arguments in their published works just as much as male philosophers do, with no statistically significant differences in the proportions of those arguments relative to each philosopher’s body of work.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data are available.
Code availability
Code is available.
Notes
For more on what can be done to improve the climate for women in academic philosophy, see Wuest (2013).
Another prevalent method that is used in academic philosophy to deal with philosophical content is eliciting intuitions through thought experiments. Buckwalter and Stich (2014) present empirical evidence suggesting that men and women have different philosophical intuitions. Adleberg et al. (2015) tried to replicate the findings reported by Buckwalter and Stich (2014) but did not find any evidence that men and women have different intuitions about philosophical thought experiments. See also Antony (2012).
Of course, arguments made in academic publications can be adversarial and aggressive as well. For example, in his review of Ted Honderich’s On Consciousness (2004), McGinn (2007, p. 474) writes, “This book runs the full gamut from the mediocre to the ludicrous to merely bad. It is painful to read, poorly thought out, and uninformed. It is also radically inconsistent. […] The second half tries to develop a new theory of consciousness, according to which the positive theses of the first half of the book are all wrong […], and the fact is only slyly acknowledged toward the end of the discussion–hence the radical inconsistency I mentioned.”.
Available at http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-295-most-cited-contemporary-authors.html. Schwitzgebel et al. (2018) have used a longer list (of 100 most-cited recent authors in the SEP) to study what they call the “insularity of Anglophone Philosophy” empirically.
Many thanks to an anonymous reviewer for raising this point.
References
Adleberg, T., Thompson, M., & Nahmias, E. (2015). Do men and women have different philosophical intuitions? Further data. Philosophical Psychology, 28(5), 615–641.
Alcoff, L. (2013). What’s wrong with philosophy? The New York Times, September 3, 2013. https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/whats-wrong-with-philosophy/
Antony, L. (2012). Different voices or perfect storm: Why are there so few women in philosophy? Journal of Social Philosophy, 43(3), 227–255.
Ashton, Z., & Mizrahi, M. (2018). Show me that argument: Empirically testing the armchair philosophy picture. Metaphilosophy, 49(1–2), 58–70.
Baronett, S. (2016). Logic. Oxford University Press.
Beasley, E. (2018). Misperceptions of the social world: What we get wrong about sex, race, money, and violence. Routledge.
Beebee, H. (2013). Women and deviance in philosophy. In K. Hutchison & F. Jenkins (Eds.), Women in philosophy: What needs to change? (pp. 61–80). Oxford University Press.
Bowell, T. (2015). The problem(s) of women in philosophy: Reflections on the practice of feminism in philosophy from contemporary Aotearoa/New Zealand. Women’s Studies Journal, 29(2), 4–21.
Buckwalter, W., & Stich, S. (2014). Gender and philosophical intuition. In J. Knobe & S. Nichols (Eds.), Experimental philosophy (Vol. 2, pp. 307–346). Oxford University Press.
Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2011). Intorduction to Logic. Fourteenth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Currie, G. (2016). Does great literature make us better? In P. Catapano & S. Critchley (Eds.), The stone reader: Modern philosophy in 133 arguments (pp. 198–202). W. W. Norton & Co.
Demarest, H., Robertson, S., Haggard, M., Martin-Seaver, M., & Bickel, J. (2017). Similarity and enjoyment: Predicting continuation for women in philosophy. Analysis, 77(3), 525–541.
Easton, C. (2021). Women and ‘the philosophical personality’: Evaluating whether gender differences in the cognitive reflection test have significance for explaining the gender gap in philosophy. Synthese, 198(1), 139–167.
Friedman, M. (2013). Women in philosophy: Why should we care? In K. Hutchison & F. Jenkins (Eds.), Women in philosophy: What needs to change? (pp. 21–38). Oxford University Press.
Govier, T. (2013). A practical study of argument (7th ed.). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Harrell, M. (2016). What is the argument? An introduction to philosophical argument and analysis. The MIT Press.
Hurley, P. J., & Watson, L. (2018). A concise introduction to logic (Thirteenth). Cengage Learning.
Krishnamurthy, M., Liao, S.-y, Deveaux, M., & Dalecki, M. (2017). The underrepresentation of women in prestigious ethics journals. Hypatia, 32(4), 928–939.
Lepore, E., & Cumming, S. (2013). Meaning and argument: An introduction to logic through language. Blackwell.
Lewis, B. (2009). Where are all the women? The Philosophers’ Magazine, 47(4), 12–16.
Maki, U. (2009). MISSing the world. Models as isolations and credible surrogate systems. Erkenntnis, 70(1), 29–43.
Marcus, R. (2018). Introduction to formal logic with philosophical applications. Oxford University Press.
McGinn, C. (2007). Review of Ted Honderich’s On Consciousness. The Philosophical Review, 116(3), 474–477.
Mizrahi, M., & Dickinson, M. (2021). The analytic-continental divide in philosophical practice: An empirical study. Metaphilosophy, 52(5), 668–680.
Morrow, D. R., & Weston, A. (2019). A workbook for arguments: A complete course in critical thinking (3rd ed.). Hackett Publishing Co.
Overton, J. A. (2013). “Explain” in scientific discourse. Synthese, 190(8), 1383–1405.
Paxton, M., Figdor, C., & Tiberius, V. (2012). Quantifying the gender gap: An empirical study of the underrepresentation of women in philosophy. Hypatia, 27(4), 949–957.
Rooney, P. (2010). Philosophy, adversarial argumentation, and embattled reason. Informal Logic, 30(3), 203–234.
Schwitzgebel, E. (2019). The 295 most-cited contemporary authors in the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. The Splintered Mind, August 20, 2019. http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-295-most-cited-contemporary-authors.html
Schwitzgebel, E., & Jennings, C. D. (2017). Women in philosophy: Quantitative analyses of specialization, prevalence, visibility, and generational change. Public Affairs Quarterly, 31, 83–105.
Schwitzgebel, E., Huang, L. T., Higgins, A., and Gonzalez-Cabrera, I. (2018). The Insularity of Anglophone Philosophy: Quantitative Analyses. Philosophical Papers, 47(1): 21–48.
Shermer, M. (2014). Surviving statistics. Scientific American, 311(3), 94.
Sober, E. (2015). Two Cornell realisms: Moral and scientific. Philosophical Studies, 172(4), 905–924.
Thompson, M. (2017). Explanations of the gender gap in philosophy. Philosophy Compass, 12, e12406.
Thompson, M., Adleberg, T., Sims, S., & Nahmias, E. (2016). Why do women leave philosophy? Surveying students at the introductory level. Philosophers’ Imprint, 16(6), 1–36.
Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and acting: An invitation to philosophy. Macmillan.
Walton, D. (1999). One-sided arguments: A dialectical analysis of bias. State University of New York Press.
Warnock, M., & Baggini, J. (2015). Does philosophy have a problem with women? The Guardian, July 25, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/25/philosphy-women-warnock-baggini-debate
Wilhelm, I., Conklin, S. L., & Hassoun, N. (2018). New data on the representation of women in philosophy journals: 2004–2015. Philosophical Studies, 175(6), 1441–1464.
Wolf, S. (1986). Above and below the line of duty. Philosophical Topics, 14(2), 131–148.
Wuest, A. (2013). Yes, there is a problem: What is to be done about the climate for women in philosophy? HOPOS: the Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 3(1), 146–150.
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to two anonymous reviewers of Synthese for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Counts and ratios of argument types by philosopher in the 3-word dataset
Philosopher | Total | De count | De ratio | In count | In ratio | Ab count | Ab ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lewis, David K. | 295,584 | 12,753 | 0.04 | 30,621 | 0.10 | 0 | 0.00 |
Quine, W.V.O. | 453,628 | 69,650 | 0.15 | 19,941 | 0.04 | 0 | 0.00 |
Putnam, Hilary | 498,836 | 64,165 | 0.13 | 102,324 | 0.21 | 35,917 | 0.07 |
Rawls, John | 193,515 | 11,957 | 0.06 | 75,723 | 0.39 | 0 | 0.00 |
Davidson, Donald | 238,097 | 40,014 | 0.17 | 17,964 | 0.08 | 9406 | 0.04 |
Kripke, Saul | 70,655 | 7124 | 0.10 | 29,528 | 0.42 | 0 | 0.00 |
Williams, Bernard | 229,423 | 76,420 | 0.33 | 39,974 | 0.17 | 17,456 | 0.08 |
Nozick, Robert | 84,856 | 2412 | 0.03 | 22,966 | 0.27 | 0 | 0.00 |
Williamson, Timothy | 574,871 | 125,147 | 0.22 | 41,636 | 0.07 | 15,724 | 0.03 |
Jackson, Frank | 456,979 | 51,701 | 0.11 | 55,961 | 0.12 | 24,098 | 0.05 |
Nagel, Thomas | 172,782 | 13,858 | 0.08 | 38,077 | 0.22 | 14,180 | 0.08 |
Searle, John R. | 247,454 | 11,335 | 0.05 | 30,105 | 0.12 | 17,863 | 0.07 |
Van Fraassen, Bas | 492,842 | 89,874 | 0.18 | 56,295 | 0.11 | 13,415 | 0.03 |
Armstrong, David M. | 274,647 | 46,657 | 0.17 | 48,040 | 0.17 | 9585 | 0.03 |
Dummett, Michael | 295,445 | 100,750 | 0.34 | 62,752 | 0.21 | 18,666 | 0.06 |
Fodor, Jerry | 317,155 | 66,482 | 0.21 | 83,310 | 0.26 | 10,257 | 0.03 |
Harman, Gilbert | 348,876 | 30,815 | 0.09 | 59,148 | 0.17 | 65,333 | 0.19 |
Chisholm, Roderick | 479,455 | 34,884 | 0.07 | 22,395 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.00 |
Dennett, Daniel C. | 294,155 | 44,146 | 0.15 | 55,117 | 0.19 | 50,282 | 0.17 |
Chalmers, David J. | 213,641 | 56,619 | 0.27 | 73,261 | 0.34 | 49,959 | 0.23 |
Strawson, P.F. | 341,154 | 56,197 | 0.16 | 25,103 | 0.07 | 21,086 | 0.06 |
Stalnaker, Robert | 389,202 | 13,408 | 0.03 | 18,872 | 0.05 | 20,989 | 0.05 |
Scanlon, T.M. | 182,519 | 19,072 | 0.10 | 20,119 | 0.11 | 4239 | 0.02 |
Dworkin, Ronald | 154,721 | 25,716 | 0.17 | 44,182 | 0.29 | 9085 | 0.06 |
Pettit, Philip | 465,236 | 55,621 | 0.12 | 149,256 | 0.32 | 0 | 0.00 |
Fine, Kit | 620,917 | 188,554 | 0.30 | 28,776 | 0.05 | 34,012 | 0.05 |
Sober, Elliott | 528,653 | 44,523 | 0.08 | 67,028 | 0.13 | 20,782 | 0.04 |
Van Inwagen, Peter | 455,873 | 97,816 | 0.21 | 94,439 | 0.21 | 28,458 | 0.06 |
Popper, Karl | 270,095 | 44,931 | 0.17 | 32,727 | 0.12 | 0 | 0.00 |
Parfit, Derek | 181,861 | 0 | 0.00 | 52,928 | 0.29 | 0 | 0.00 |
Kitcher, Philip | 538,719 | 32,999 | 0.06 | 58,543 | 0.11 | 76,636 | 0.14 |
Bennett, Jonathan | 415,384 | 66,990 | 0.16 | 72,266 | 0.17 | 11,818 | 0.03 |
Nussbaum, Martha | 476,306 | 77,325 | 0.16 | 221,079 | 0.46 | 0 | 0.00 |
Anscombe, G.E.M. | 129,188 | 17,503 | 0.14 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
Korsgaard, Christine | 152,127 | 41,033 | 0.27 | 15,783 | 0.10 | 0 | 0.00 |
Anderson, Elizabeth | 216,245 | 26,240 | 0.12 | 27,160 | 0.13 | 10,830 | 0.05 |
Thomson, Judith Jarvis | 305,937 | 67,227 | 0.22 | 59,026 | 0.19 | 0 | 0.00 |
Cartwright, Nancy | 256,543 | 4962 | 0.02 | 23,823 | 0.09 | 12,924 | 0.05 |
Annas, Julia | 245,770 | 48,301 | 0.20 | 32,110 | 0.13 | 15,863 | 0.06 |
Young, Iris Marion | 141,579 | 19,189 | 0.14 | 31,872 | 0.23 | 19,934 | 0.14 |
Millikan, Ruth G. | 250,734 | 8535 | 0.03 | 72,808 | 0.29 | 48,753 | 0.19 |
Foot, Philippa | 122,136 | 49,478 | 0.41 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
Stump, Eleonore | 200,811 | 53,264 | 0.27 | 12,416 | 0.06 | 31,434 | 0.16 |
Okin, Susan Moller | 160,664 | 33,343 | 0.21 | 85,629 | 0.53 | 0 | 0.00 |
Butler, Judith | 22,587 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
O'Neill, Onora | 134,399 | 0 | 0.00 | 5792 | 0.04 | 0 | 0.00 |
Zagzebski, Linda | 104,398 | 10,505 | 0.10 | 9167 | 0.09 | 0 | 0.00 |
Baker, Lynne Rudder | 282,194 | 15,560 | 0.06 | 8693 | 0.03 | 19,832 | 0.07 |
Haslanger, Sally | 130,402 | 8687 | 0.07 | 0 | 0.00 | 35,968 | 0.28 |
Thomasson, Amie | 149,391 | 24,251 | 0.16 | 24,900 | 0.17 | 17,506 | 0.12 |
Hurley, Susan | 178,397 | 0 | 0.00 | 44,627 | 0.25 | 0 | 0.00 |
Longino, Helen | 88,088 | 8158 | 0.09 | 7383 | 0.08 | 0 | 0.00 |
MacKinnon, Catharine | 17,309 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
Marcus, Ruth Barcan | 86,796 | 18,713 | 0.22 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
Benhabib, Seyla | 70,781 | 0 | 0.00 | 13,467 | 0.19 | 0 | 0.00 |
Paul, L. A. | 122,513 | 33,520 | 0.27 | 19,781 | 0.16 | 40,369 | 0.33 |
Alcoff, Linda Martín | 111,627 | 9012 | 0.08 | 48,302 | 0.43 | 8644 | 0.08 |
Gendler, Tamar | 136,347 | 27,803 | 0.20 | 28,746 | 0.21 | 0 | 0.00 |
Wolf, Susan | 108,413 | 0 | 0.00 | 25,412 | 0.23 | 0 | 0.00 |
Adams, Marilyn McCord | 151,166 | 34,265 | 0.23 | 3414 | 0.02 | 26,616 | 0.18 |
Baier, Annette | 284,507 | 31,533 | 0.11 | 17,582 | 0.06 | 0 | 0.00 |
Kamm, Frances | 309,838 | 70,047 | 0.23 | 67,616 | 0.22 | 62,087 | 0.20 |
Langton, Rae | 121,281 | 41,305 | 0.34 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
Lloyd, Elisabeth | 127,173 | 0 | 0.00 | 16,064 | 0.13 | 43,096 | 0.34 |
Appendix 2: Counts and ratios of argument types by philosopher in the 6-word dataset
Philosopher | Total | De count | De ratio | In count | In ratio | Ab count | Ab ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lewis, David K. | 295,584 | 49,653 | 0.17 | 51,843 | 0.18 | 0 | 0.00 |
Quine, W.V.O. | 453,628 | 73,017 | 0.16 | 20,889 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.00 |
Putnam, Hilary | 498,836 | 108,501 | 0.22 | 103,907 | 0.21 | 40,425 | 0.08 |
Rawls, John | 193,515 | 19,669 | 0.10 | 82,248 | 0.43 | 0 | 0.00 |
Davidson, Donald | 238,097 | 44,791 | 0.19 | 25,158 | 0.11 | 4703 | 0.02 |
Kripke, Saul | 70,655 | 23,340 | 0.33 | 29,528 | 0.42 | 0 | 0.00 |
Williams, Bernard | 229,423 | 80,110 | 0.35 | 56,209 | 0.25 | 8728 | 0.04 |
Nozick, Robert | 84,856 | 2412 | 0.03 | 40,319 | 0.48 | 0 | 0.00 |
Williamson, Timothy | 574,871 | 149,035 | 0.26 | 94,934 | 0.17 | 7862 | 0.01 |
Jackson, Frank | 456,979 | 59,185 | 0.13 | 91,772 | 0.20 | 36,922 | 0.08 |
Nagel, Thomas | 172,782 | 20,542 | 0.12 | 38,077 | 0.22 | 29,911 | 0.17 |
Searle, John R. | 247,454 | 28,366 | 0.11 | 30,105 | 0.12 | 18,833 | 0.08 |
Van Fraassen, Bas | 492,842 | 122,121 | 0.25 | 85,962 | 0.17 | 21,250 | 0.04 |
Armstrong, David M. | 274,647 | 65,720 | 0.24 | 75,368 | 0.27 | 9585 | 0.03 |
Dummett, Michael | 295,445 | 138,360 | 0.47 | 63,435 | 0.21 | 9333 | 0.03 |
Fodor, Jerry | 317,155 | 89,400 | 0.28 | 113,261 | 0.36 | 25,259 | 0.08 |
Harman, Gilbert | 348,876 | 45,988 | 0.13 | 90,687 | 0.26 | 70,541 | 0.20 |
Chisholm, Roderick | 479,455 | 75,549 | 0.16 | 32,878 | 0.07 | 3374 | 0.01 |
Dennett, Daniel C. | 294,155 | 57,321 | 0.19 | 55,117 | 0.19 | 25,141 | 0.09 |
Chalmers, David J. | 213,641 | 120,095 | 0.56 | 78,430 | 0.37 | 38,191 | 0.18 |
Strawson, P.F. | 341,154 | 76,163 | 0.22 | 63,110 | 0.18 | 12,747 | 0.04 |
Stalnaker, Robert | 389,202 | 40,873 | 0.11 | 31,750 | 0.08 | 20,989 | 0.05 |
Scanlon, T.M. | 182,519 | 38,246 | 0.21 | 61,457 | 0.34 | 4239 | 0.02 |
Dworkin, Ronald | 154,721 | 67,138 | 0.43 | 77,536 | 0.50 | 9085 | 0.06 |
Pettit, Philip | 465,236 | 106,800 | 0.23 | 255,681 | 0.55 | 8369 | 0.02 |
Fine, Kit | 620,917 | 206,725 | 0.33 | 28,776 | 0.05 | 47,326 | 0.08 |
Sober, Elliott | 528,653 | 73,799 | 0.14 | 149,226 | 0.28 | 23,369 | 0.04 |
Van Inwagen, Peter | 455,873 | 110,539 | 0.24 | 148,423 | 0.33 | 18,321 | 0.04 |
Popper, Karl | 270,095 | 45,727 | 0.17 | 35,869 | 0.13 | 0 | 0.00 |
Parfit, Derek | 181,861 | 0 | 0.00 | 78,830 | 0.43 | 0 | 0.00 |
Kitcher, Philip | 538,719 | 43,625 | 0.08 | 135,487 | 0.25 | 59,603 | 0.11 |
Bennett, Jonathan | 415,384 | 94,822 | 0.23 | 107,436 | 0.26 | 11,818 | 0.03 |
Nussbaum, Martha | 476,306 | 100,209 | 0.21 | 313,152 | 0.66 | 0 | 0.00 |
Anscombe, G.E.M. | 129,188 | 22,151 | 0.17 | 14,230 | 0.11 | 0 | 0.00 |
Korsgaard, Christine | 152,127 | 70,678 | 0.46 | 15,783 | 0.10 | 10,592 | 0.07 |
Anderson, Elizabeth | 216,245 | 26,240 | 0.12 | 39,723 | 0.18 | 10,830 | 0.05 |
Thomson, Judith Jarvis | 305,937 | 67,227 | 0.22 | 59,026 | 0.19 | 0 | 0.00 |
Cartwright, Nancy | 256,543 | 4962 | 0.02 | 72,406 | 0.28 | 9833 | 0.04 |
Annas, Julia | 245,770 | 48,301 | 0.20 | 52,757 | 0.21 | 15,863 | 0.06 |
Young, Iris Marion | 141,579 | 19,189 | 0.14 | 84,572 | 0.60 | 9967 | 0.07 |
Millikan, Ruth G. | 250,734 | 32,194 | 0.13 | 102,105 | 0.41 | 27,867 | 0.11 |
Foot, Philippa | 122,136 | 67,347 | 0.55 | 13,076 | 0.11 | 15,497 | 0.13 |
Stump, Eleonore | 200,811 | 65,976 | 0.33 | 24,342 | 0.12 | 15,717 | 0.08 |
Okin, Susan Moller | 160,664 | 54,285 | 0.34 | 114,006 | 0.71 | 0 | 0.00 |
Butler, Judith | 22,587 | 935 | 0.04 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
O'Neill, Onora | 134,399 | 9833 | 0.07 | 5792 | 0.04 | 0 | 0.00 |
Zagzebski, Linda | 104,398 | 19,672 | 0.19 | 29,645 | 0.28 | 0 | 0.00 |
Baker, Lynne Rudder | 282,194 | 27,321 | 0.10 | 8693 | 0.03 | 17,024 | 0.06 |
Haslanger, Sally | 130,402 | 8687 | 0.07 | 29,676 | 0.23 | 17,984 | 0.14 |
Thomasson, Amie | 149,391 | 41,398 | 0.28 | 30,645 | 0.21 | 24,649 | 0.16 |
Hurley, Susan | 178,397 | 10,894 | 0.06 | 44,627 | 0.25 | 0 | 0.00 |
Longino, Helen | 88,088 | 8158 | 0.09 | 21,754 | 0.25 | 0 | 0.00 |
MacKinnon, Catharine | 17,309 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
Marcus, Ruth Barcan | 86,796 | 22,986 | 0.26 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
Benhabib, Seyla | 70,781 | 0 | 0.00 | 13,467 | 0.19 | 0 | 0.00 |
Paul, L. A. | 122,513 | 49,306 | 0.40 | 37,201 | 0.30 | 30,075 | 0.25 |
Alcoff, Linda Martín | 111,627 | 21,342 | 0.19 | 57,137 | 0.51 | 17,656 | 0.16 |
Gendler, Tamar | 136,347 | 27,803 | 0.20 | 43,495 | 0.32 | 16,662 | 0.12 |
Wolf, Susan | 108,413 | 9971 | 0.09 | 32,796 | 0.30 | 0 | 0.00 |
Adams, Marilyn McCord | 151,166 | 47,573 | 0.31 | 25,156 | 0.17 | 13,308 | 0.09 |
Baier, Annette | 284,507 | 64,105 | 0.23 | 37,183 | 0.13 | 0 | 0.00 |
Kamm, Frances | 309,838 | 106,088 | 0.34 | 81,853 | 0.26 | 42,206 | 0.14 |
Langton, Rae | 121,281 | 66,142 | 0.55 | 67,192 | 0.55 | 0 | 0.00 |
Lloyd, Elisabeth | 127,173 | 5528 | 0.04 | 20,066 | 0.16 | 32,173 | 0.25 |
Appendix 3: Counts and ratios of argument types by philosopher in the 10-word dataset
Philosopher | Total | De count | De ratio | In count | In ratio | Ab count | Ab ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lewis, David K. | 295,584 | 70,514 | 0.24 | 82,092 | 0.28 | 0 | 0.00 |
Quine, W.V.O. | 453,628 | 88,163 | 0.19 | 30,645 | 0.07 | 18,129 | 0.04 |
Putnam, Hilary | 498,836 | 191,218 | 0.38 | 109,692 | 0.22 | 40,425 | 0.08 |
Rawls, John | 193,515 | 19,669 | 0.10 | 83,445 | 0.43 | 0 | 0.00 |
Davidson, Donald | 238,097 | 58,745 | 0.25 | 31,495 | 0.13 | 16,259 | 0.07 |
Kripke, Saul | 70,655 | 23,340 | 0.33 | 29,528 | 0.42 | 0 | 0.00 |
Williams, Bernard | 229,423 | 87,463 | 0.38 | 64,937 | 0.28 | 8728 | 0.04 |
Nozick, Robert | 84,856 | 19,765 | 0.23 | 46,356 | 0.55 | 0 | 0.00 |
Williamson, Timothy | 574,871 | 192,474 | 0.33 | 131,396 | 0.23 | 25,389 | 0.04 |
Jackson, Frank | 456,979 | 87,131 | 0.19 | 113,762 | 0.25 | 47,338 | 0.10 |
Nagel, Thomas | 172,782 | 20,542 | 0.12 | 61,894 | 0.36 | 36,462 | 0.21 |
Searle, John R. | 247,454 | 50,112 | 0.20 | 30,105 | 0.12 | 51,120 | 0.21 |
Van Fraassen, Bas | 492,842 | 157,021 | 0.32 | 111,184 | 0.23 | 26,494 | 0.05 |
Armstrong, David M. | 274,647 | 81,877 | 0.30 | 112,514 | 0.41 | 19,029 | 0.07 |
Dummett, Michael | 295,445 | 138,360 | 0.47 | 81,554 | 0.28 | 9333 | 0.03 |
Fodor, Jerry | 317,155 | 96,104 | 0.30 | 157,550 | 0.50 | 25,259 | 0.08 |
Harman, Gilbert | 348,876 | 62,651 | 0.18 | 93,219 | 0.27 | 97,364 | 0.28 |
Chisholm, Roderick | 479,455 | 111,919 | 0.23 | 43,327 | 0.09 | 3374 | 0.01 |
Dennett, Daniel C. | 294,155 | 57,321 | 0.19 | 73,517 | 0.25 | 41,754 | 0.14 |
Chalmers, David J. | 213,641 | 120,095 | 0.56 | 134,581 | 0.63 | 38,191 | 0.18 |
Strawson, P.F. | 341,154 | 149,409 | 0.44 | 79,438 | 0.23 | 12,747 | 0.04 |
Stalnaker, Robert | 389,202 | 57,894 | 0.15 | 55,484 | 0.14 | 31,039 | 0.08 |
Scanlon, T.M. | 182,519 | 38,246 | 0.21 | 61,457 | 0.34 | 4239 | 0.02 |
Dworkin, Ronald | 154,721 | 67,138 | 0.43 | 86,621 | 0.56 | 32,041 | 0.21 |
Pettit, Philip | 465,236 | 120,110 | 0.26 | 291,073 | 0.63 | 8369 | 0.02 |
Fine, Kit | 620,917 | 249,149 | 0.40 | 71,419 | 0.12 | 102,826 | 0.17 |
Sober, Elliott | 528,653 | 87,150 | 0.16 | 185,830 | 0.35 | 22,873 | 0.04 |
Van Inwagen, Peter | 455,873 | 158,233 | 0.35 | 163,683 | 0.36 | 28,842 | 0.06 |
Popper, Karl | 270,095 | 71,080 | 0.26 | 43,139 | 0.16 | 0 | 0.00 |
Parfit, Derek | 181,861 | 11,839 | 0.07 | 82,200 | 0.45 | 25,564 | 0.14 |
Kitcher, Philip | 538,719 | 65,778 | 0.12 | 203,166 | 0.38 | 72,015 | 0.13 |
Bennett, Jonathan | 415,384 | 141,367 | 0.34 | 151,836 | 0.37 | 11,818 | 0.03 |
Nussbaum, Martha | 476,306 | 122,201 | 0.26 | 322,362 | 0.68 | 7043 | 0.01 |
Anscombe, G.E.M. | 129,188 | 37,217 | 0.29 | 31,063 | 0.24 | 0 | 0.00 |
Korsgaard, Christine | 152,127 | 93,817 | 0.62 | 15,783 | 0.10 | 10,592 | 0.07 |
Anderson, Elizabeth | 216,245 | 26,240 | 0.12 | 73,384 | 0.34 | 10,830 | 0.05 |
Thomson, Judith Jarvis | 305,937 | 86,152 | 0.28 | 90,458 | 0.30 | 0 | 0.00 |
Cartwright, Nancy | 256,543 | 4962 | 0.02 | 93,467 | 0.36 | 16,480 | 0.06 |
Annas, Julia | 245,770 | 67,489 | 0.27 | 79,609 | 0.32 | 15,863 | 0.06 |
Young, Iris Marion | 141,579 | 31,211 | 0.22 | 108,343 | 0.77 | 9967 | 0.07 |
Millikan, Ruth G. | 250,734 | 60,788 | 0.24 | 136,294 | 0.54 | 52,496 | 0.21 |
Foot, Philippa | 122,136 | 72,504 | 0.59 | 21,965 | 0.18 | 15,497 | 0.13 |
Stump, Eleonore | 200,811 | 84,173 | 0.42 | 49,873 | 0.25 | 15,717 | 0.08 |
Okin, Susan Moller | 160,664 | 63,453 | 0.39 | 155,154 | 0.97 | 0 | 0.00 |
Butler, Judith | 22,587 | 935 | 0.04 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
O'Neill, Onora | 134,399 | 11,132 | 0.08 | 14,611 | 0.11 | 9965 | 0.07 |
Zagzebski, Linda | 104,398 | 30,981 | 0.30 | 47,261 | 0.45 | 0 | 0.00 |
Baker, Lynne Rudder | 282,194 | 27,321 | 0.10 | 8693 | 0.03 | 17,024 | 0.06 |
Haslanger, Sally | 130,402 | 30,273 | 0.23 | 41,222 | 0.32 | 26,093 | 0.20 |
Thomasson, Amie | 149,391 | 52,082 | 0.35 | 41,329 | 0.28 | 24,649 | 0.16 |
Hurley, Susan | 178,397 | 10,894 | 0.06 | 81,461 | 0.46 | 0 | 0.00 |
Longino, Helen | 88,088 | 14,358 | 0.16 | 27,930 | 0.32 | 3810 | 0.04 |
MacKinnon, Catharine | 17,309 | 0 | 0.00 | 17,309 | 1.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
Marcus, Ruth Barcan | 86,796 | 22,986 | 0.26 | 5781 | 0.07 | 0 | 0.00 |
Benhabib, Seyla | 70,781 | 13,467 | 0.19 | 13,467 | 0.19 | 0 | 0.00 |
Paul, L. A. | 122,513 | 49,306 | 0.40 | 37,201 | 0.30 | 40,551 | 0.33 |
Alcoff, Linda Martín | 111,627 | 21,342 | 0.19 | 80,137 | 0.72 | 17,656 | 0.16 |
Gendler, Tamar | 136,347 | 27,803 | 0.20 | 43,495 | 0.32 | 36,479 | 0.27 |
Wolf, Susan | 108,413 | 9971 | 0.09 | 32,796 | 0.30 | 0 | 0.00 |
Adams, Marilyn McCord | 151,166 | 50,971 | 0.34 | 25,156 | 0.17 | 40,368 | 0.27 |
Baier, Annette | 284,507 | 76,712 | 0.27 | 37,183 | 0.13 | 0 | 0.00 |
Kamm, Frances | 309,838 | 120,111 | 0.39 | 94,924 | 0.31 | 48,836 | 0.16 |
Langton, Rae | 121,281 | 72,420 | 0.60 | 50,376 | 0.42 | 0 | 0.00 |
Lloyd, Elisabeth | 127,173 | 23,647 | 0.19 | 47,253 | 0.37 | 32,173 | 0.25 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mizrahi, M., Dickinson, M.A. Philosophy’s gender gap and argumentative arena: an empirical study. Synthese 200, 110 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03587-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03587-0