Whats the most important arts/humanities subject

Honeslty, I think drawing a line is difficult and maybe even pointless. These things overlap.

In historiography (philosophy of history) there are a lot of questions about truth and subjectivity - can we ever reach historical truth? Can we be objective?

Nah, I have no problem with someone challenging my opinions! My opinions and beliefs may change into more accurate, and seeing other sides of things is just heatlhy and helps me to form more aware opinion. I enjoy this debate, and you werent offensive at all

Sure, language systems aren't, unfortunately, fully explicit. However arts how we traditionally consider it is a lot more vague than say, English language. There is also the absolute knowledge system, mathematics, but that is not appliable to everyday communication, and nor is arts.

While mathematics has its place as science of patterns and tool of many other sciences what is the use of art? I don't think adcertisements are the most essential thing in the existance even thou they are needed too. However usually its not an artist alone who makes ads, its the marketing team, that consists of many other folks besides visual designer.

8 Great Philosophical questions we will never solve
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Is our universe real?
Do we have free will?
Does God exist?
Is there life after death?
Can you really experience anything objectively?
What is the best moral system?
What are numbers?

Fun to discuss over a beer, no doubt. Useful? Important? Most important?

Why is everyone always naked in portraits...

I just saw your post above which perfectly captures the point I was trying to make

Let's take the scientific method - this is the philosophy of science.

"Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science, and the ethic that is implicit in science. There are basic assumptions, derived from philosophy by at least one prominent scientist, that form the base of the scientific method – namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world."

Without philosophy, science would still be stuck in the middle ages where people thought walnuts were good for your head because they are shaped like brains. Philosophy looks at the nature of knowledge and tries to define and critically assess assumptions about what we can know.

In historiography (philosophy of history) there are a lot of questions about truth and subjectivity - can we ever reach historical truth? Can we be objective?

Actually philosophy is unique in that it is the only discipline that can apply itself while being itself... Philosophy of science is not science, but philosophy. You don't really get mathematics of physics though, that, is just part of physics (at least semantically?). I'm not entirely sure about the semantic cause of that... just something I've noticed.

Still, ignoring that, because my intention was not to raise that point before. I just wanted to show the alternatives. If maths is the king of science then philosophy is the king of maths and... That doesn't sit well with many folks. I suppose the problem is what I alluded to before though - people think then of existentialism and continental feminists ruling over mathematicians. Hahaha. Obviously not... And if people don't want to concede that then must argue that applied maths is not "maths", perhaps meta-maths? You could try and differentiate the two. I suggest taking the route which simplifies this whole "categorising disciplines into different areas" problem. As after all surely the purpose of categorising disciplines by name is to simplify the similarities and differences between them in some way and to make inter-disciplinary comparisons and research easier?

See, I am a scientist. And of course I agree with you that historically, philosophy is the mother of all sciences. But today, I can honestly say that I have never knowingly used philosophy in the lab, or when writing a paper. Sure, I use processes that historically developed out of philosophy and then were incorporated into science - like heuristic techniques, the distinction between observation and interpretation, correlation and causation, and so on - but today these processes are an integral part of science. Scientists don't study philosophy any more. Many scientists probably don't even know how their discipline grew out of philosophy. It is not really relevant to their daily life.

See, I am a scientist. And of course I agree with you that historically, philosophy is the mother of all sciences. Historically, it was very important, and I would even agree with "most important". But today, I can honestly say that I have never knowingly used philosophy in the lab, or when writing a paper. Sure, I use processes that historically developed out of philosophy and then were incorporated into science - like heuristic techniques, the distinction between observation and interpretation, correlation and causation, and so on - but today these processes are an integral part of science. Most scientists don't study philosophy any more. Many scientists probably don't even know how their discipline grew out of philosophy. It is not really relevant to their daily life.

I think it's interesting that you think that effective and valuable communication is only that which is perfectly accurate, and that interpretation is therefore irrelevant and obsolete. Also, how you seem to think that the traditional arts are definitive in the context of contemporary art - I'd be intrigued to know how you define art? Surely secondary meanings and the potential for multiple interpretations not only enriches the primary or intended meaning of a piece of literature or art, but also makes it more accessible, allowing greater and deeper interaction from the public?

Not just historically; scientists apply philosophy of science every time they run an experiment, or analyse results.

But physics is applied analytical philosophy. To be honest we should go back to calling it Natural Philosophy. Sounds cooler

The interpretation of quantum mechanics is a good example of philosophy and physics. There are different interpretations you can choose, all of which are equally valid empirically speaking. They all match up to experiment.

Well, I think that in communication the purpose is to transmit the message, so that reciever understands it just as sender intends (s)he will understand it. If there are some secondary meanings sender is not aware reciever could misinterpret the message. So in my opinion more explicit communication is more effective it is. Valuable is wrong word, but I hope languages in the future evolve into more explicit direction so they'd fulfill their function as tool of communication more effectively.
This is why I love mathematics, there is no place for misinterpretation. If my answer is wrong there is a reason why.

Definition of art is a tough one, but in context of this and previous messages I sent I define it as creative piece of work with no other purpose than for one to express themselves and possibly bring jos to those who consume it, be it writing, painting/drawing, statue, piece of music.

See, I am a scientist. And of course I agree with you that historically, philosophy is the mother of all sciences. Historically, it was very important, and I would even agree with "most important". But today, I can honestly say that I have never knowingly used philosophy in the lab, or when writing a paper. Sure, I use processes that historically developed out of philosophy and then were incorporated into science - like heuristic techniques, the distinction between observation and interpretation, correlation and causation, and so on - but today these processes are an integral part of science. Most scientists don't study philosophy any more. Many scientists probably don't even know how their discipline grew out of philosophy. It is not really relevant to their daily life.

Not just historically; scientists apply philosophy of science every time they run an experiment, or analyse results. You're right that the every day scientist in the lab probably doesn't have a deep understanding of and/or study of philosophy - they just follow the rules - and that's a real shame I think.Either way they're still learning the philosophy at some point.

If that's the case and there is no line, then how can we rank one as more important than another?

You seem like you're making the rather terrible assumption that the present way of science is optimal for achieving all of our human ends. Why on Earth would one think that? And the only way to see what alternatives are better (other ways of doing science or other epistemic tools than science) is to do philosophy. That's why it is so useful - it's necessary for progression.

No, actually. I do think, however, that science is now so complex that innovation is more likely to come from within the field (from a specialist) than from without (from a non-specialist, i.e. philosopher). Scientists can think too, you know.