Philosophical naturalism, according to which philosophy is continuous with the natural sciences, has dominated the Western academy for well over a century, but Michael Rea claims that it is without rational foundation. Rea argues compellingly to the surprising conclusion that naturalists are committed to rejecting realism about material objects, materialism, and perhaps realism about other minds.
Read Chapter 1, "Introduction", and Chapter 7, "What Price Antirealism?". Both present interesting challenges to naturalism and its compatibility with other theses usually endorsed by naturalists, although I worry that his conception of "naturalism" may be a little too close to what is encompassed under "(radical) empiricism".