First, everything which I write here, please consider as a draft which may be modified or retracted.
Second, when I look back at things which I have written, they are mostly criticisms — rejections of this or that.
Third, what I have to say about metaphysics and epistemology, I have said in my Ph.D. dissertation, Critique of Wilfrid Sellars’ Materialism, 1990. I characterize myself as an Emergent Materialist, and I agree with Sellars that “in the dimension of describing and explaining the world, science is the measure of all things, of what is, that it is, and of what is not that it is not.” In light of the existence of artifacts (things created by humans), the Sellarsian claim has to be qualified. When Sellars uses the term “world” he must be talking about — to use his term — the “physical-2” world (this is the physical world before the emergence of life, i.e. the inanimate world). If he includes the “physical-1 world,” then the term “science” must be expanded to cover intentional phenomena (function, teleology). And “explanation” must be expanded to cover not only causal explanations but explanations by reasons.
Fourth, I believe that Curt Ducasse was correct in viewing philosophy as dealing with appraisals — both positive and negative. To call something bullshit is to express a very strong negative appraisal.