I'd argue that physics is being taught the way philosophy is. It's just that with physics, there's clear evidence that previous approaches fell short and there is no need to dwell on them for a long time. However, in introductory classes, you still go into the reasons that previous approaches were wrong. Why do we need to postulate such things as atoms? Knowing why advances were needed makes it much clearer why the current approach is right.

In philosophy, you need to go through all the motions to understand exactly where and why previous approaches fall short. You need to be able to reproduce the exact lines of reasoning, because you need them over and over again. Old paradigms are revisited over and over again. After thoroughly understanding why duality falls short, you discover that there are actually ways to save it. But you have to be very careful not to fall into one of the traps of reasoning that made you reject it previously. A thing like Platonism isn't dead, but any current Platonist has to be very refined in order to keep his philosophy credible.