In class I mentioned the following four popular philosophical
doctrines: (1) naturalism--roughly, that science is the best or
only source of knowledge, so that, if philosophers want to know
something, they should ask science; (2) physicalism--roughly, that
everything (every object, property, event, and/or law) is physical
(is a physical object, physical property, physical event, physical
law); (3) empiricism--roughly, that all our knowledge comes from
experience; (4) scientific realism--roughly, the doctrine that the
things science says exist are the things that really exist. Pick at
least one of these and explain what it means (and doesn't mean) for
one or more of the authors we've read.
(A few possible ways to make this interesting: show, for example,
that the disagreement between two authors who disagree is really a
disagreement over the correct interpretation of one of these
doctrines, or that one of them pulls a particular author in more
than one direction (leading to tension or incoherence), or that two
of these doctrines which seem to go together (and/or which do go
together for some of the authors we've read) are really, according
to some (other) author(s), diametrically opposed.)