Your statements are based on assumptions that, in turn, are based on values that I think you'll have a hard time finding ultimate justifications for.

Let's start with the simple stuff: the value in knowledge. First, you assume that the value of a question is determined by the value of the answer. But that assumes that the value is inherent in the answer all along. Also, what is the value of knowledge? Sure, you could say something like, knowledge helps people live longer or die less or something. But what's the value in that? Surely your "one truth" cares not a jot about human existence, and therefore human knowledge. And if it us and who we are who give value to knowledge, then surely we might value the questions regardless of the answer. I think you'll find that Buddhists see value in questions much more than in answers.

Second, the "only one truth" statement. You base it on the assumption that there is only one reality. Now, suppose that were true (although you'll find no proof of that; that is simply an assumption of science, but nothing we can prove). Other realities can still exist within that reality that cannot be meaningfully reduced (see my comment about universal computation and reduction of the human mind). To the character in Minecraft, the world of Minecraft is real, and even you can't say it's any less real than our world simply because it's simulated (and, for all we know, our world may be simulated too). If the human mind is a computer creating an inner world, an inner experience, for each of us, how can anyone say it's less real than the physical universe? Mathematically it certainly isn't, and in fact, they may both be simulations. It is subjective -- but it's just as real. A computer scientist must understand that there is no mathematical distinction between an illusion -- i.e. a simulation -- and measurement.

Yes, it's true that if you die in your dream you're not really dead, and that if you die in real life then you can never dream, but that is just an implementation detail. If the CPU blows up the program stops and not vice-versa, but that doesn't make the program any less real than the CPU.

So who said finding objective truth is more valuable than subjective truth? Yes, it helps more people, OK. But who says that is more valuable? Once you start assigning values, you'll find no objective justification.

Finally, even the question of what constitutes knowledge is very tricky. The famous Gettier problem clearly shows that if we agree on a complete, robust definition of knowledge, we find that nothing we believe we know actually meets the definition.

Now, I'm not really disagreeing with you, because science and humanities exist on two separate plains. One in the physical world, and one in the simulated world -- neither is any more real than the other. I think it is Protestantism (especially its American manifestations) that makes people who are victims of its harsh culture so insistent on reconciling everything into a single paradigm. Catholics (and Jews) have no problem believing that God created the world in seven days while at the same time believing it was created in the Big Bang. They believe God created Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, while at the same time accept evolution as fact. All those stories can be real and true simultaneously, but Protestants just don't get it.

As to your statement about STEM vs. humanities people, I could debate your assertions from my own personal experience all day long, but the mere fact that you chose to make it tells a lot about you and your priorities. What's your point? That STEM people are smarter? Let's suppose that they are. So what? Does that make them more valuable?

You seem to offload your personal judgement on value to the market, but you don't get off so easy. Who said that what the market finds valuable is indeed valuable? And if not, who really determines value? I think that is one question that is far more valuable than any answer you can find :)