Interesting statistics about academic philosophy

[Mudhammam]

Let me ask a simple question.  If the vast majority of high-level philosophers all agree with each other on most of the salient points of their world view. . . is any philosophy still being done at all?

Sure, why wouldn't there be? New arguments for a given dogma might be formulated, or old ones get refined or discarded; the increasingly frequent developments in the sciences force philosophers to return to old territory or explore new ground in logic and ethics, and to clarify or expand on definitions and their relation to physical or mental objects. I see no reason to think that an existing popular framework is an impediment to the fecundity of thought - contrarily it would likely be, so to speak, nourishing, as it is in the physical sciences.

I'd say the true philosopher must be, almost by definition, outside of the majority, since it is exactly the willingness to challenge those views most entrenched that gives philosophy its value.

It also seems to me that physical monists in an academic setting base that confidence on the commonality of their assumptions, rather than on the necessity of their conclusions. But this is not so much evidence for truth as evidence for minds too lazy to push the envelope in seeking it.

I guess it depends on what you perceive "pushing the envelope" to translate into on practical terms. Some might say that Deepak Chopra pushes the envelope with his mystical nonsense, or, to take someone with more intellectual respectability, Alvin Plantinga. I wouldn't really say that their willingness to put forth bold ideas in the minority camp makes their contributions a step nearer to truth, except insofar as error can illuminate.