One can always go deeper and question why we ever had the scientific revolution with its assumptions about what we can know about nature and wonder "Why not something else?" Possibly because it has led to such immediate successes in the gain of useful knowledge. Who knows? But there is always the opportunity for someone with completely different assumptions to start their own field.
That's an interesting way of putting it.
The concept of public education has become problematic because the assumption of content neutrality. One's own field can easily run into issues with that for there's a point at which "one's own field" only has theoretical applicability.
The issue here has to do with consensus (e.g. primary education's benchmarks). That issue is not limited science per-se.
The more problematic is the overlap of assumptions. This overlap can be conveniently omitted in theoretical abstraction because at a certain level, abstraction is existentially neutral. Historical and political aspects on the other hand present challenging criteria for measures of success and winning.