All theories of science are philosophical ones. The theory of gravity most particularly not excepted--most particularly lately.
Shoot, if what you say about "most scientists" is correct, then "most individual scientists believe" would do. Enough to say hey, we aren't shutting the door on heaven, that has to be your choice.
Huh. Nearly an agreement in principle--who'd have thunk it?
"All theories of science are philosophical ones. The theory of gravity most particularly not excepted--most particularly lately."
The gravity discussion would be interesting to bring up as a case in point, if the problem were not too difficult to describe at a popular level well enough that when the students COULD do all the math they would not complain of being misled. Things are not always what they seem.
In a larger sense I was referring to extra-scientific philosophical claims that are made about Science (but for which Science cannot return the favor because the scope relation is asymmetrical). Something to the effect that many/most biological scientists individually view their work through a philosophical lens that allows for or affirms an active creation agent in a successive appearance of the various plants and animals that existed or exist now. And that some biological scientists are skeptical of the mainstream TOE position. But that the study at hand will propound no absolute doctrine about the matter. And with that word, a brief study of ID philosophy, followed by the TOE, commences. Science is viewed as a servant rather than a master.
In what way do you consider the prevailing theory of gravity philosophical? Having a passing familiarity with it myself, I'd hardly term it so.