Epistemic naturalism or metaphysical naturalism?

They're both problematic. The former commits you to the non-existence of a priori truths (which means you can't easily get 'method' off the ground in the sciences), and the latter commits you to a really screwy way of talking about things like numbers and concepts.

Here's another good one, with more comments from Albert: http://philocosmology.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/an-explanation-from-nothing/

I'm more of a Davidson guy, myself.

This article was posted on Leiter's blog, and does a half-decent job of mediating: http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/05/01/151752815/blackboard-rumble-why-are-physicists-hating-on-philosophy-and-philosophers

avoids the nitpicking over whether Wittgenstein and Russel were really philosophers

If you actually read more than the Principia, or the Tractatus, it's pretty obvious that they both are. Why else would there be about 50 pot-boiler books by Russell about "philosophy", or Wittgenstein, you know, living with GEM Anscombe, and working with her? Maybe scientists think only the male analytic philosophers aren't really philosophers?

@nowhereman1991, is that David Lewis in your avatar?