This effort is a good offering for naturalistic epistemology as it wishes for the impossible (reasonable and practical modern epistemic outlook). Bishop & Trout begs the moral question as they assert that improper reasoning leads to bad results forasmuch as "bad" presupposes a standard that the authors, as naturalists, cannot provide. Epistemic tests to determine good or bad presuppose a fixed moral ground.

They offer fine critical judgments on a variety of epistemic approaches and if one doesn't guard one's pre-commitments too closely, one will be converted to their view.

This is an enjoyable read, even for non-philosophers, and it will expand anyone's epistemic horizons even if one disagrees with their rational (empirical) approach.