This is a combination news-announcement and begging for someone with academic subscriptions to maybe jailbreak a PDF for us.
Googling the paper's title took me to this list of publications which offers this download link for the paper.
It's not clear why this reflects poorly on philosophers.
Like, I'm sure you could find the same thing with controversial scientific questions. Maybe not to the same magnitude.
Suppose you didn't find it. "Well, yes, we disagree about a number of seemingly-simple topics, but these disagreements aren't correlated to our personality, so we really have everything figured out, it's just that .... uh .... um "
The problem is in philosophy they attempt to use intuitions as evidence. If their "philosophically informed intuitions" are still vulnerable to biases and errors then arguments based on those intuitions are (even more) suspect. I doubt most LW readers found the intuition evidence argument compelling to begin with.
This is a combination news-announcement and begging for someone with academic subscriptions to maybe jailbreak a PDF for us.
"Persistent bias in expert judgments about free will and moral responsibility: A test of the expertise defense" (emphasis added):
Linked from http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2011/06/failure-of-the-expertise-defense-persistent-bias-in-expert-intuitions-.html which elaborates: