There's a clear demarcation between humanities subjects and STEM subjects in our society which, really, ought to look ridiculous on the face of it. STEM subjects are about the external world, reality; the humanities are about ourselves as experiencing and motivated agents. All human activity necessarily flourish from our capacity to act, to the fullest degree, as experiencing and motivated agents. And to boil it down even further: it all comes from philosophy. There is always an initial and necessary presupposition, perspective, conjecture (whatever you want to call it) which precedes our effective operation within reality. Indeed, humans themselves are merely reality personified, literally.

Understanding philosophy as the basis of all knowledge and understanding--especially epistemology and ethics--seems fundamental to me in the quest for establishing ourselves as the best, most informationally-rich agents we can be. When I see William Lane Craig debating with the likes of Lawrence Krauss, the latter's disdain for philosophy is both enraging and disappointing. I obviously agree with Krauss, but seeing Craig undermine him with his better grasp of philosophy is irritating. It's not even out of my agreement with Krauss; it's about spreading open inquiry on the best possible foundation.

If scientists were more aware of the work of Karl Popper, of postpositivism and critical rationalism--along with all the baggage like logical positivism, falsificationism, the problem of induction, the problem of demarcation et cetera--then I really do think our science and our society would improve in some quite serious ways. Of course, extending this to beyond scientists--teaching epistemology and ethics as a requirement in schools--could help to create a more rational, empirically-minded and emotionally balanced populace.

After all, science is merely philosophy manifest.

>expected a short paragraph

Lol nope

I wish I understood your posts.

So, in English:

You want Philosophy to be taught in schools? It already is