Thinking science and philosophy are entirely separate misses the big picture. Look at it this way: all the science fields we study today, like physics and biology, grew from philosophical questions. What we’re doing when we dive into these subjects is exploring questions about the world, a task philosophy started.

Take chemistry and astrology as examples. Why do we consider chemistry more valid? It's not because chemistry steps outside of physics' boundaries; it's that it gives us useful answers based on physics. Anything in chemistry that doesn't fit with physics we see as a mistake. But this doesn't mean chemistry doesn't have its place. It tackles parts of the world physics covers in broad strokes, just as physics uses math to detail its findings. Saying physics could exist without math, or implying a problem in physics could be solved outside of math, goes against the whole idea of what physics is.

Saying 'philosophy is dead' ironically shows how successful philosophy has been. We don’t need to constantly refer back to philosophy for everyday scientific questions because those frameworks are already well-established. Philosophy comes into play when we’re faced with truly strange or new questions that challenge our current understanding.

I swear that the administrative convenience of treating domains of science as distinct subjects rather than subsets and supersets and entirely separate from philosophy in K-12 has caused confusion and dogmatic rigidity on a global scale.