It will comes as no surprise to my regular readers that I'm a Prof. Brian Cox fan

(Or 'Professor Lovely' as a delightfully snarky friend calls him). 

When I heard that he was hosting a live tour I jumped at the chance to see one of his lectures 'for real', and headed to Sheffield City Hall on Thursday 6th Oct, ready to be educated in all things space, not really knowing what to expect.

When the show opened with a video of singing muppets I was, to say the least, a bit confused, but certainly entertained. Talk about an intro!

As it happened, the show was effectively an extension of Brian Cox and Robin Ince's Radio 4 programme 'The Infinite Monkey Cage', where Brian and Robin take a look at the world through a scientist's eyes, with Brian to provide the science and with Robin bringing humor and taking on the role of the interested and self-educated everyman. While the focus was on the lecture style, at times Robin would also interject to lighten the mood, banter, and join in with Brian as well as encouraging audience participation, such as through tweeting science questions. Robin was funny and charming and the two got along very well. Having never heard of 'The Infinite Monkey Cage' before, I was intrigued to check it out (but more on that later).

The meat of the show though was, of course, Brian's main lecture. It focused around the discovery of the Big Bang and how we can detect the size and composition of our incredibly large universe, and drifted into questions about the possibility of alien life on other planets and the probability of finding anything that resembles us. While fans will have been introduced to these concepts in varying details in his other programmes, it still managed to be fresh and was delivered with his classic mix of gentle passion and wonder, and his ability to make the concepts approachable without compromising on precision.This made the whole talk very engaging. While time flew during the lecture, Robin's interjections managed to keep everything fresh, which helped keep the energy levels going. All in all it was a great night out for anything with a curiosity for sciences, especially fans of Brian's wide range of work.

Can I still See Him?

If you'd like to check out the show the good news is that it has proved so popular that Brian Cox Live has been given a series of arena dates as well for 2017. These will be visiting Derby, Nottingham, Newcastle, Glasgow and Wembley in May 2017. There are also a whole host of 2016 dates still on the cards, running up to the 2nd of December, if you can score the tickets. So why not give it a try? I certainly enjoyed myself.

The Infinite Monkey Cage

As I said, Robin and Brian's banter was a lot of fun, so when they mentioned (through muppet-song) that the show was a product of the programme Infinite Monkey Cage naturally I had to go searching to find it.

The great news is that all 14 series' are available to download on BBC radio 4's Iplayer account here.

I've listened to a couple so far and they've been delightful, bringing in interesting guests (both comedians and scientists) to weigh in on a whole variety of subjects. I know where my 5GB data limit will be going on my phone on the morning commute....

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you're reading this blog 99.9% of you believe in human evolution.

But if - for some reason - you needed convincing further, there are a number of very cool little clues to our evolutionary past that you can see on your own bodies. In fact, to show you how easy it is to see, I'm going to do a show and tell of my own!

Is this a gang sign? Am I in a gang now?

1. The Palmarus Longis Tendon

If you lay your arm on a flat surface and touch your little finger and thumb together, 85-90% of people will see a little tendon spring up in the middle of their wrist. If you're having trouble seeing it, tilt your hand towards yourself...still nothing? Well feel special, because it looks like you've evolved out of that trait naturally.

Here's mine. Please excuse the creepy E.T hand contortions: smalls wrists and flexible palms do that for ya.

This tendon attached to the Palmarus Longis a now relatively redundant tendon in your arm that once upon a time helped you climb about in trees. You see longer more pronounced tendons in lemurs and small monkeys, and shorter or weaker tendons in apes that spend more time on the ground than in the trees. There's no real signifier that this helps with grip nowadays if you have it.

2. Lactose Tolerance

Do you remember the Little Britain episodes with the 'Bitty' grown man who still breastfed? Do you remember how uncomfortable that was to watch? Well, as far as the majority of nature - including humans- are concerned, drinking any kind of milk as an adult is just as unsettlingly unnatural. 75% of adults on the planet have a natural gene that shuts down the production of lactase, making digestion of milk products difficult. In northern Europe, however, anything between 80-100% of people can digest milk products just fine. Because of Eurocentric Colonialism and the pervasive spread of 'Western' culture as being somehow normative, nowadays the majority of people take the consumption of milks, cheeses and yoghurts for granted as natural when, really, it's an aberration.

Seriously. Look at that divide. 

The ability to continue generating lactase as an adult, which allows the body to break down milk products, was a mutation that happened around 10,000 years ago to people in Northern Europe and some people in equatorial Africa. It's uncertain as to why it developed, but some theories have it that in the colder climates of the green areas in the map above, the ability to consume milk products conferred an advantage. These duller environments meant that people couldn't naturally absorb as much Vitamin D from the sun, which is vital for bone development. Lactose products are good alternative sources for vitamin D due to the calcium so from an evolutionary perspective it's likely that people with it who consumed milk were healthier. The spread of the green to other far flung countries were a product of colonisation by milk-loving europeans. Evolution before our very eyes from some freaky gene and some hungry guy or girl who thought drinking milk would be worth a try.

Living in England and being of British heritage, I can digest lactose just fine. I drink pints of the stuff - thank you freaky ancestor!

Huzzah!

3. Goosebumps to the Cold and Strong Emotions

Ok, I admit it. I stuffed my arm in my freezer for five minutes and didn't manage to get good enough set of goosebumps to photograph on my phone because: summer. But you've all had 'em.

Goosebumps, as most of us know, are leftovers from when we were covered in fur. Despite some modern beauty standards (*cough*) all of us are still covered in hair, top to bottom, but for the majority of the population it's fine and doesn't serve as much use for keeping us warm as it used to. Nevertheless should we get cold the cells at our hair follicles will stiffen and make it so that our hair rises up. When we had more fur and thicker hair, this would create air pockets which would become an excellent insulation.

However one thing you often don't hear about is an explanation for why we sometimes get goosebumps when experiencing a strong emotion. You may get them when you're scared, or when experiencing something so beautiful/ ethereal that it's oddly unsettling at a physical level - like a beautifully sung piece of opera music. (For me, being the dork I am, I got goosebumps when I heard the human and synth-enhanced high notes of the Diva Pavalaguna song in the Fifth Element for the first time). 
It is thought that these serve a similar function - they were from when you puffed up your fur - but instead of being for warmth it was instead for defense. Often when an animal is scared or uncertain it might puff up it's fur to make itself look bigger and more threatening while it processes whether to fight or run away. This response filtered down to the present day when the sudden intensity of an emotion locks us back into that primal fight or flight response of uncertainty and our hairs puff up in defense. We may not feel actually at threat, but the adrenaline response triggers the goosebumps.

Ah, noble Google Image Search. Where would I be without you?

4. Ear Muscles and Shapes

In most ears there are a set of three muscles that lay against them and serve little function nowadays, but for the approx 15% of the population who can wriggle their ears. This awesome party trick is a leftover of evolution from when, as small mammals, we had larger ears. The interesting part is that they're still actively in use. When observing the movement of these muscles even in individuals who can't move their ears, they found that they automatically react to audio stimulus. If there is a sudden noise the muscles leap to activity, and by studying the reaction of the muscles you can even tell what direction the sound was made in. Pretty neat.

Another interesting feature left over by evolution is "darwin's tubercle". These are little bumps that occur as a thickening of the in the outer rim of the ear, which are leftovers from some animal ear shapes - such as the pointed ears of a baboon. Taking a look at my own ears it was a mixed bag - while my left ear was completely thin and rounded my right ear might have a very faint bump. Evolutionary leftovers or just standard variation - who's to say? Have a look at your own and see :)

Piercings optional.

5. Your Third Eyelid

The vestigial third eyelid in humans is one of our most interesting evolutionary leftovers because they are most often found fully formed in birds, reptiles and amphibians. In other words, they prove a common ancestor waaaaay back.
This is called the Nictating Membrance or the Plica Semilunaris and is located in your innermost eye where there is a fleshy flap that takes up a small corner of your eye.

#NoMakeupSelfie

 Back in the day, these would be semi-transparent eyelids that swept vertically across the eyeball to help keep out debris and to keep the eyeball clean. Oddly they can still be found working in some primates, whereas others - like the chimpanzee - are like us in that they are entirely out of use. Here's what they look like when they're fully functioning:

So there you have it. Your body is a history book, so make sure to appreciate it!

Finally, I leave you with an equally awesome and hideous curio of the internet; What Humans Would Look Like If They Evolved to Survive Car Crashes. You're welcome.

Keep in touch....

Remember, you can follow Preludes: Blog of Words us on Twitter and Facebook. Or Subscribe to us on Blogluvin' to never miss a post.

Stay curious!

Sources
- Vox via IFL science via tumblr
- Encyclopedia Britannica
- Wikipedia
- Live Science
- Slate.com
- Oxford Univeristy press
-Scientific American

When you 'grow up' often a lot of your school-day education gets forgotten.

It's how the brain works, in the end, it doesn't tend to hold onto information that doesn't have a direct application.
 When I was in secondary school I did very well in all three sciences (ie I scored good grades) but I was never really scientifically minded at all. Really, the good marks were more testament to a talent to approaching exams and coursework in the right way rather than scientific intelligence. I have always been interested in how things worked of course, but at the time I was blinkered in science lessons away from how what they were teaching us (all tables and formulae) actually served to make the world tick. I saw no beauty in it.
Now, as an adult, that curiosity has come back, as has an appreciation for what science acrtually is and does. And it frustrates me no end that iIve forgotten so much of what I was taught as a kid in such detail.

Enter PBS Spacetime.

PBS Spacetime is a brilliant Youtube channel that takes astronomical science and makes it acessible but in a very detailed way. Unlike some other youtube channels there is no 'dumbing down' of the science, but they have a talent for keeping the audience engaged and intrigued nevertheless. As a result, they can get into some pretty deep and detailed topics but maintain an open and interactive dialouge with their audience. The hosts are excellent, both being very informed in the subject and clear presenters. It's impossible to leave a PBS Spacetime video without feeling like you have genuinely been taught something valuable.

Some of the topics on offer are:

• Can you trust your eyes in spacetime?
• When time breaks down
• The origin of matter and time
• Why haven't we found alien life yet?
• What does dark energy really do?
• Will the universe expand forever?
• Why the big bang definately happened

So if you're curious about space, you could do a lot worse than PBS Spacetime. Check them out!



Other 'Preludes Recommends' Posts:

-Crash Course
-Brian Cox and the Wonders of the Universe
-PBS Ideas Channel
-Vsauce



Keep in touch....

Remember, you can follow Preludes: Blog of Words us on Twitter and Facebook. Or Subscribe to us on Blogluvin' to never miss a post.

Stay curious!

Did everyone enjoy this week's viking-filled Doctor Who episode?

What really stuck out to me was the set design as they created a very realistic viking village., with it's longhouses and willow fences. And the costume design really felt spot on (putting aside the ever-present controversy of whether vikings wore horned helmets or not).

From the Doctor Who episode The Girl Who Died

Seeing it all in the flesh got be thinking back to my visit to York, where I took in it's perhaps most famous attraction: Jorvik Viking Centre.

Jorvik Viking Centre should perhaps be labelled more of an experience than a traditional museum.

Overall it's quite small and while it does have quite a number of interesting exhibits in it's glass cases, it's primary purpose is to help you experience the viking past of York in the flesh, and it does this through a disneyland-esque ride through a creative ancient village.

Manned by friendly staff members in very authentic looking viking clothing, you're bundled onto what looks like a rollercoaster seat suspended from the ceiling where you can relax and select which audio tour you would like to take you around the place. As well as foreign language options, they have a nice touch in that you can have an adult voiceover or a child-friendly voiceover. Then you're off, pulled gently through into a gloom of timber and odd smells as the authentic experience begins.

Builders taking a break

A fair bit is touched on here, such as the architecture of the longhouses and the ingenuity involved in building them on multiple floors, and as you move through the village they have taken the care to include some of the older buildings too, to show how viking technology improved over time. You are guided through a village that is set out in a layout based on actual excavations found in York. The most interesting aspect is the wax people, who are animated and always at work and play as the tour shows you viking markets, what people did for a living, and even what they argued about! An attention to detail that I really loved was that the audio tour-guide was presented as a real person who would interact with each wax-person in their native Nordic language. Hearing the ancient language spoken out loud by multiple people really gave you a sense of reality and a fondness for the people in this small but carefully realised village.

The whole exhibit has a sense of humor that is certainly great fun for kids, and there's even a silly bit of toilet humor towards the end to keep them (and grown-ups) giggling.

Over all the Jorvik Centre is a fun way of spending an hour or so. In my opinion, while it can't compare to the York Castle Museum for a traditional museum experience, it is trying something completely different by offering you a step back in time. If you have young children or an appreciation for the craftsmanship involved in creating this experience it's definitely worth checking out.

For My Reviews on More Interesting Museums and Historical Landmarks...

-York Castle Museum (York)

-Osborne House (The Isle of Wright)

-Stonehenge (Wiltshire)

-Philosophy at the Showroom (Sheffield)

-The General Cemetery (Sheffield)

-Chatsworth House (Bakewell, Derbeyshire)

-The 'Lost Village' of Damflask (Sheffield)

-Bishop's House (Sheffield)

There Are Few Spectacles Quite As Controversial as Cutting Apart a Dead Body on TV...

Today I wanted to review the DVD series 'Autopsy' by Gunther Von Hagens, which I have been watching quite a bit of over the last few weeks.

Gunther's greatest claim to fame is his development of the plastination of human remains and his choice to use this technique to perform live demonstrations as well as to display plastinated bodies as an often strange blend of art and museum piece.  He performed the first public autopsy in the UK in 170 years which 'her magesty's Inspector of Anatomy' warned would be a criminal act under section 11 of the Anatomy Act of 1984. The show was attended by policemen but they did not intervene and in 2002 the show was shown in full on Channel 4, generating 130 complaints to OFCOM for 'sensationalism'. Despite this he carried on further shows with success and some of these were then turned into a DVD boxset that features 'Anatomy for Beginners' (2005), 'Autopsy: Life and Death' (2006) and 'Autopsy; Emergency Room' (2007).

Gunther mid Autopsy

 Whatever your views about Gunther Von Hagens and his plastination of bodies for display, it is hard to argue that they are not fascinating and educational. The DVD boxset brings us something unique and remarkable to watch: live dissections of real people, which is certainly a rare experience.To take an example, 'Life and Death' deals with the reasons behind common causes of death. He is joined with the lecturer John Lee to explain the details of the biology at work which is to be demonstrated to the audience. On hand are a pair of nude live models to act as a go-to comparison and a series of plastinated examples of organs. But, most emotively, there is also a 'fresh' corpse that is wheeled out to the audience in the studio and at home to demonstrate first hand the diseases and concepts they discuss. 

It's a shock to see a person dead and naked on a slab, even if their faces are respectfully covered, and even more so when they are cut away and experimented on during this educational autopsy. Like the people who crowded around live dissections in the past, or the medical students today, you are brought into an intimate and very challenging scene. The matter of fact treatment of the body as it is  cut apart to demonstrate each concept is eye-opening in itself and, naturally, rather unsettling especially when alongside are living counterparts so close-by. But when you move past this knee-jerk reaction you find yourself in a privileged position and there is no doubt that being able to witness this all in such detail is really rather special. What's more, Gunther's genuine enthusiasm for the anatomy coupled with his respect to the body and those potential donors sat in the audience leave you in no doubt about how importantly this unique and often visceral education really is. You're not likely to learn more about practical human biology from any other programme, that's for sure.

If you'd like something a little different to help you learn about human biology, I would thoroughly recommend the Autopsy series. It's a unique an insightful experience with a very firm basis in fact and practical demonstration which showcases the ingenuity of our talented doctors and the resiliency and fragility of our own beautiful bodies.

A plastinated heart

 Philosophy, really, gets a bad rep.

In a time when degrees get more expensive for prospective students and the job market feels tighter than ever, choosing to study philosophy can sometimes seem, at best, self indulgent and,at worst, hopelessly short sighted. It's an opinion that has plagued the arts and humanities sector of education for decades - what is the purpose of it? Why choose such a potentially intangible subject above the vocational graft or engineering technicality that will put food in your families mouths and bring about industrial and capital gain? Or, if you must insist on being an academic of theory, why not choose the empirical sciences? Why would you choose to analyse ideas when you could be analysing atoms?

And glorious, glorious equations

 Personally, my opinion of academia is that you should pursue it, if you can, from a place in you that has a love of learning. It's this curiosity and enjoyment of academia for its own sake that pulled me into two history qualifications. Philosophy has also always intrigued me and the two subjects feed into one another nicely. One thing it was almost impossible to escape in history was the veneration of the classical philosophers.

The majority of us have heard, in passing through popular culture, about many of the Greek 'greats': Aristotle, Plato, Pythogaras to name but a few. But who an earth were they and why, now that the 'classical education' of our ancestors has mostly been put aside, should we care about them?


Thales
[Of Miletus]
624-546 BC

Who was he?

With the development of the city-states in Ancient Greece, there was a gradual movement away from using religion as an explanation for all phenomena, and towards rational thinkers who sought natural explanations. Thales lived in Miletus in what we now call Turkey and, while no writings of his own survived, we can look back to see his work through second hand accounts from Aristotle and Diogenes Laertius. It is thought that Thales had a keen grasp of geometry, astronomy, and was a commendable businessman.
Thales' was, we believe, the first person in Western Philosophy to propose Monism; that is, that everything on Earth and beyond is comprised of a single substance. He believed that this had to be something that everything else could be formed out of: something that is essential to life, capable of motion and capable of change.
Aristotle, from whom we learn much about Thales, described his theory:

'Thales says that it [the nature of things] is water’ (Metaph. 983 b20), ... ‘[Thales's] supposition may have arisen from observation . . . ‘ (Metaph. 983 b22). So that ‘that the nurture of all creatures is moist, and that warmth itself is generated from moisture and lives by it; and that from which all things come to be is their first principle’ (Metaph. 983 b23-25)

 Water can be liquid, solid or gas and all life is, it seems, comprised in some part water. Therefore the base element of the whole universe is water.

Why should I care?

Nowadays it's common knowledge how vital water is. The human brain, for example, is 70% water. While it was later debunked that water is the fundamental composition of all things, it was still an important (and secular!) theory to create. Belief in the generation of water from the Earth too, wasn't replaced until 1769 AD. And, it's believed, that Aristotle attributed the belief that the Earth was round to Thales.
But more importantly, it wasn't so much of what Thales concluded that was important, but how he came to prove it. he is the first known thinker in western culture (we believe) who deliberately sought naturalistic, rationalistic answers to these fundamental questions, rather than relying on religion. This structure carried across into further philosophy and developed into the scientific thought and values that our current modern culture is founded upon.
Thales and his followers effectively invented rational thought founded on secular, logical proof.
That is huge. Tell me that that isn't relevant.


Pythagoras
[Mad about Triangles]

570-495 BC

 Who was he?

A2 + B2 = C2
 
I was never good with equations at school but Pythogoras' equation for how to work out the sides of a right-angled triangle always stuck with me. It's thought that Pythagoras learnt the fundamentals of his geometry from a trip to Egypt, and his interest in science and mathematics fed into his philosophy.
Pythagoras believed that everything in the universe conforms to mathematical rules and ratios, so if we understand these mathematical relationships we can understand the structure of the cosmos. Maths, therefore, should be the key model for philosophical thought.
As well as discovering square numbers, cube numbers and his famous theory, Pythagoras also discovered numerical harmonies such as the octave, which could even explain the pleasentness of music. He framed abstract, artistic, and even 'divine' topics in mathematical terms, and detected patterns that could be replicated to explain other phenomena.
 
He thought he was onto something
He thought that he was onto something so hard that he started his own religious cult based on the belief that these principles were mystical revelations. He cast himself as a Messiah, bent on freeing everyone from a cycle of reincarnation. 
As with Thales, none of Pythagoras' original writings survive, so we don't know how far some of his conclusions come from himself, his religious collective, or his admirers who passed on his ideas. 


Why should I care?

 He started a cult. That's pretty awesome.

But aside from that, the idea that the universe can be rationalised into mathematical equations and thoughts is, I think, the effective foundation of our own modern approach to science and the universe. Plato (as we shall see later) certainly agreed with this idea. Countless ways that we understand the universe and it's workings are based on simple mathematical principles which are true both in microcosms and macrocosms. For example, the branch of a tree resembles the whole tree, because they are working from the same fractal law. 


 

[http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mathematical_universe.asp]

If you'd like to take a look into some of the fascinating mathematics of the universe, check of this website by Andrew Thomas that takes you through some of them.

For Pythagoras, mathematics was pure reasoning, and therefore he believed that they had greater value (and proof) than simple observation. In a way, abstract thought and deductive reasoning were seen as more important than the simple senses.

We can see this today in analysis of things that are beyond our own senses - from the atoms and microbes to the vast untouchable quantum theories that govern our universe and time itself.


Leucippus and Democritus
[The Atomic Duo] 
Early 5th century BC - 371 BC

Who were They?

 As we have seen, Thales of Miletus had already proposed that the whole cosmos was made out of one fundamental substance, in this case, water.
Leucippus and Democritus instead proposed that the universe was made up of tiny, invisible and unchangeable particles called atoms, and it was due to their existence that certain phenomena occurred, such as why light might shift even when there is no wind.
What is more, they proposed that these atoms existed in a void which allows them to move around freely, and through colliding and combining with one another objects in the world could change. While there are infinite numbers of atoms, the amount of forms they can take is ultimately finite.

Atoms were viewed as not mathematically indivisible because they had substance and weight, but they were physically indivisible because of their tiny size.
The sizes didn't have to be tiny - in theory there is no reason why an atom couldn't be the size of a planet - but that is how they worked.

  They assumed that the more clustered and larger an atom got, the more that it's movement was restricted. And the smaller an atom, the more it had space to move, creating something ethereal and fluid like flame. 

They believed then, that structure of atoms could also dissipate and that this is what happens when we die: our atoms simply disperse into the universe and can be reconstituted.


Why should I care?

Does all of this sound familiar to you?
These two were talking about atomic theory before we even had microscopes. And they achieved it with pure philosophy. How amazing is that?

They were mind-blowingly close to what we now understand as scientific reality, and in proposing atomism they also provided a completely mechanical view of the universe that required absolutely no involvement of the gods. This was revolutionary and the fundamental properties of matter that they described were vital for the development of the physical sciences from the 17thc onwards up until the present day.

...Also Democritus was an exceedingly odd looking man. So there's that.



 Socrates
[Dialectical Method]
469-399 BC

 Who was he?

 Socrates believed that 'good' and 'evil' are not relative, but are instead absolutes that you can find only by questioning and reasoning. Therefore in order to give life meaning you have to very closely examine it, and, through knowledge, you also find morality.
For example what do people understand as 'good' or 'bad'? What is 'justice'? It's pointless to use these words as shorthand unless you discover exactly what they stand for. That way, regardless of cultural differences, we can all drill down to find the core values and meanings in these words: their truth.

His key teaching, and what him famous, was the dialectical method that he used to encourage people to question these words and moralities. He always debated by taking the standpoint of a man who knew nothing and simply asked questions that would, very gradually,elicit insights. As these little blocks of information and belief were uncovered, they would build up gradually to form a 'Truth' about how people interpret key ideas.

For example 
(taken  from 'the philisopy book' p48 see sources)

Q; So you think the gods know everything?
A Yes, because they are gods.
Q:Do some gods disagree with others?
A: Yes, of course they do. They are always fighting.
Q: So Gods disagree about what is true and right?
A: I suppose they must do.
Q:So some gods can be wrong somtimes?
A: I suppose that is true.
Conclusion: Therefore the gods cannot know everything!

This form of argument through exposing contradictions was quite controversial, to the point where Aristotle was put to death for 'corrupting the minds of young Athenians'.


Why should I care?
 
Not to repeat myself throughout this article but...this is the foundation of modern science, right here! Francis Bacon, considered one of the early modern scientific greats, used Aristotle's devices as the starting point of scientific method.
Also this method is still being used today to poke holes in highly charged arguments. Turn on the internet  and, fairly or unfairly, this is the dialect that is used to contradict religious teachings. Turn on the news and this form of discussion follows any subject where our concept of justice and morals are challenged.
While we may argue about whether a 'universal truth' can ever exist outside of individual cultures and semantics, it's clear that it's a powerful form of argument.



Plato
[Shadows of Ideals]
427-347 BC

Who was he?

Widely regarded as the most studied philosopher in our group, I can't begin to properly unpick the layers of theory from my novice standpoint. However, in simpler terms, it is worth mentioning his theory of the shadow of ideals.

 Plato was a student of Socrates and in many ways extended Socrates' belief that behind our practical assumptions there is a universal Truth. Socrates believed that hiding under our many faceted opinions on an idea (eg 'justice') there was a universal and absolute truth - a fundamental definition - of that idea that could be reached by questioning it properly. (So justice becomes Justice with a capital 'J' - the one and only true form of the idea, universal across all mankind.) Similarly, Plato took this theory and applied it to the sensory world around us.
 When we think of a flower, for example, we can recognise all flowers easily as being flowers. This applies regardless of their very many colours and shapes and species: there is something fundamentally 'flower-like' that we recognise, even if we have never seen that particular species before. 

The same applies to other objects: we know a table is a table, despite the numerous designs. We recognise the 'table-ness' of it. We recognise an innate 'dogginess' about any dog we come across, even if we have never seen that breed before. 
We do the same with mathematics through reasoning. For example, we know a triangle is a triangle because of it's 'triangle-ness', that is, we've reasoned that the three interior angles of any triangle is always 180 degrees. We know the truth of this statement even though there are absolutely no 'perfect' triangles in the natural world. Perfectly straight lines, circles and triangles only exist in our own minds through reasoning. If this is true, isn't it the same for flowers, tables and dogs? Do such perfect forms exist anywhere on earth?
The answer, really, is no. Therefore Plato reasoned that there must be a world of Ideas, or Forms, which is completely separate from the material world. What we experience with our senses are only incomplete and imperfect 'shadows' of this universal truth in the world of Ideas. He believed then that our soul, which is immortal and eternal, mast have inhabited the world of Ideas before our birth and still yearns to return to this world after our death, and we recognise these imperfect objects as reflections of what we already know. A philosopher's job is to reason their way into discovering what these Ideal Forms are.
Because only true philosophers can understand these Truths about our world, Plato suggested that world leaders should be educated in philosophy.

Why should I care?

Personally, I believe that Plato is most important because he tried to understand why it is that, as humans, we can assume collective truths out of a myriad of things that are actually quite different. While on his own, Plato's theories can be hard to grasp and difficult to frame in practical reality, it is how his student took these ideas forward that is vital for the development of science as we know it...


Aristotle

[Classifying the Natural World]
384-322 BC

Who was he?

 When we was 17 Aristotle travelled to Athens to study under Plato, and stayed at his side as a student and teacher at the academy until the great philosopher's death 20 years later. He was passionate about studying wildlife and through it found that Plato's complicated and ethereal explanation of Forms was simply unnecessary. There was no need to create this hypothetical world of forms: the reality of things can already be seen on earth.

For example, if we consider an owl, we know that there are multiple species of owls, yet there is always an 'owl-ness' that we can recognise. Plato would view this 'owl-ness' as a memory of a perfect form that we carry with us from the 'World of Ideas'. For Aristotle, however, he could simply reason what this 'owl-ness' is simply a  generalisation about what all owls have in common. For example, does it fly? If yes it may be an owl, if not it is something else. Does it have feathers? If yes, it may be an owl, if no it is not an owl. Is it nocturnal? If yes it may be an owl, if no it is not an owl. Does it have a heart-shaped face? If yes it may be an owl. If no it may not be an owl. And so on and so on. By digging down in this way, individual characteristics could be included under the umbrella term 'owl', and yet the commonalities all show a distinct 'owl-ness' that we understand. A fundamental truth of what an owl is. If one takes a step back again, one could classify multiple creatures under another fundamantal common truth - eg 'birds'.

More abstract concepts such as 'virtue' 'justice' and 'beauty' can be examined in exactly the same way. If we are born as 'blank tablets' then our understanding of 'justice' is developed by our seeing multiple individual examples of justice in action. The more that these actions have in common, the more our understanding of 'justice' as a concept grows. Just like animal classification, we can classify these instances' commonality together to get a true sense of what we understand 'justice' to be, and all of this is gained through using our senses in the real world.

Why should we care? 

This way of classifying creatures is still in use today, albeit in a modified way. In the middle ages it was dubbed the scala naturae - the Great Chain of Being.  Without this approach to taxonomy, it would be almost impossible to develop the theory of evolution and to track the patterns of nature. Classification creates a foundation for biological knowledge.
For example, litte has fundamentally changed about how we identify extinct sharks, as can be seen on their wiki page:

Arirstotle, of course, had many more vital philosophical beliefs. but, for me, this is the most practical and enduring. And this vital tool for biology came from simple philosophy.



So, in conclusion, classical philosophy is relevant. It's fascinating in it's own right, but it is also historically responsible for the very way that we think. Science, Maths, History, Sociology, Psychology (and therefore medicine) and even some engineering would simply not exist in the way we use it today without the philosophical work of these people and the philosophers who followed them. Philosophy is, and never has been, a waste of time. It analyses what it is to the a thinking creature on Earth, and how we should live our short lives, and even how we should seek the answers to the workings of the universe itself. 

Philosophy isn't just relevant; it's vital.

Source:

The Philosophy Book, part of the fabulous 'Big ideas Simply Explained' series. Those books are full of both detail and clarity and are very readable. I want to dive off and learn more now, so check 'em out.

Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy