On Quine's Naturalism in Phil. of Science: it's my view that Naturalists in Phil. of Science are too myopic regarding the fundamental problems that Phil. of Science deals with in the first place. That is, Phil. of Science to them is itself defeated by the moment they assume the position of Naturalism.
Besides, doesn't the very discipline of Philosophy add both reasoning and logics to the same sciences that the experts of exactly the sciences, i.e., the scientists, add by their field-closed inquiries? I believe my own practice by philosophy of science is helping to defeat the narrow mindedness that Naturalism presents to other Philosophers of Science.
Thus, as Quine is made a foe and Naturalism is this thinness of philosophical thinking, I reject this Naturalism too! Scientific Realism provides much more serious inquiry to the sciences _from_ the Phil. of Science!
Summary, 2 points (against Quine/Naturalism):
1. The defeat of Phil. of Science by Naturalism is implausible as philosophers bring both reasoning and logics/system/unity by their inquiry.
2. The Scientific Realism provides a much broader and serious alternative for Philosophers of Science than Naturalism in practicing Philosophy of Science.
This is also supported by my own practice in taking down the Copenhagen Interpr. (leaving only the observation point, also indirectly) and String Theory and adding revision and Photon Theory to physics! Good? :-)
Note1: First posted to Facebook between 23rd and 25th Aug. 2011. I'll post more accurate time and date later.