>>Recognizing that science is based on the philosophy of naturalism and cannot return any answer except a ‘natural’ one is not smoke but is very much light. It leads to the realization that the whole discussion is about competing philosophies, not empipricism vs philosophy as the naturalists would have you believe.<<
Let’s assume that statement is correct.
It is useful to ask why we teach and learn science in the firt place. I would argue that the reason is advance civilization by producing practical application and also to better understand how the universe works.
Given that the scientific method method works for those two goals, even if you conclude there is a philosophy behind it, the practical results justify the investment.
To undercut this investment with other philosophies that do not produce any practical results is wasteful.
That is not to say there is no place for other philosophies but not in science class.
One might believe philosophically that lightning is not the same as the electrochemical force found in Leydan jars and the Ben Franklin and his kite were wrong. Feel free to belive that. But as long as electromagnetic science produces useful results and competing philosophies do not produce useful results, then spending science class time teaching against electrical theory is wasteful, much like teaching against developmental biology is wasteful.
Calling electrical theory Franklinism is as wrong as calling developmental biology Darwinism is wrong.
See my post to metmom where I explain that 'other philosophies' were the genesis of the scientific revolution and that the assumption of naturalism has actually slowed scientific progress.