# What is an example of a theory that everyone can understand? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 22, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783 "2011-05-22T16:42:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/41 "2011-05-23T16:04:00Z")
Beer goggles theory: > [@](#): > > unattractive people look more attractive (to us) after a few drinks. [http://www.lovespeaks.net/study-beer-goggles-theory-proven/](http://www.lovespeaks.net/study-beer-goggles-theory-proven/) Pretty simple theory, even if you disagree with. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/42 "2011-05-23T16:10:01Z")
> [@Francis\_Vaughan](#): > > A demon/spirit theory of disease is never going to be falsifiable - mainly because you can invoke capricious behaviour on the part of the spirit/demon to explain any result you get. So it isn’t a theory. Theology perhaps, but scientific theory, no. Again I must say, it is too a theory, although it is not scientific. Popper intended falsifiability to be a criterion of scientificness, not of theoryhood. Indeed, he specifically argued that Marxism, Psychoanalysis, etc _were_ theories, and even that they had started off as scientific theories, but that they had lost their scientific status (but certainly not their theoretical status) because they (their original versions) had been falsified but not abandoned. Of course, many would argue that Popper’s theory of the nature and methodology of science has itself been repeatedly falsified by studies of how science actually works in practice, but that is another matter. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/43 "2011-05-23T16:19:25Z")
However, I’ve always found the **Atomic Theory** pretty simple to grasp the basics of: An atom is comprised of three parts: A positively charged proton. A negative charged electron, and a neutron with no charge. One of each of these makes hydrogen (okay, an exception here, but you can get into isotopes later). Two of each makes helium. Three, lithium and so on… ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/44 "2011-05-23T16:32:37Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > A hypothesis is a statement that makes a testable prediction. > > A theory is a hypothesis that has been well-tested. > > Forming hypotheses, and testing them isn’t just how we conduct science, it’s how we conduct our day-to-day lives. > > For example, say you’re sitting at home and you hear the garage door open. You form the hypothesis that your girlfriend has returned from the grocery store. You glance out the window and see the back end of her car as it disappears into the garage. Now you have experimental confirmation that your hypothesis was correct. It’s promoted to the status of a theory. You don’t have absolute proof that your “girlfriend is home” theory is correct, but you do have some pretty strong evidence to support it. > > Then you hear her voice in the garage. Then you hear the door open. Then she walks in the living room and says “hi”. Each new data point increases your confidence in your “girlfriend is home” theory. The testable predictions of your original hypothesis are being repeatedly confirmed. > > And yet, you never reach the point where you can be absolutely certain that your girlfriend is home. Maybe she was secretly replaced by an exact duplicate at the store as part of some diabolical plot. Maybe she has an identical twin and they’re playing an elaborate prank on you. Maybe you’re asleep and you’ve only dreamed that she came home. And so on. The more you observe your girlfriend after she returns from the store, the more certain you become that your “girlfriend is home” theory is correct, but there’s always a tiny lingering possibility that you’re mistaken. > > That’s exactly how theories in science work. The only difference is that scientists are more rigorous in how they go about testing predictions. I love this. Mind if I use this explanation (with all due credit to here) to help others understand how the scientific method works? It’s a wonderful metaphor. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/45 "2011-05-23T16:34:31Z")
If a=b and b=c then a=c Except in Kansas ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/46 "2011-05-23T17:39:53Z")
Re: Germ Theory > [@Derleth](#): > > Except for the people who deny it altogether, either on religious grounds or because they’re just that nuts. While they may deny it, I think very few of them will say “I don’t get it.” ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/47 "2011-05-23T18:23:05Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Of course (see my user name) But, I was aiming the theory towards kids. Kids don’t know what cyan and magenta are. > > Define red, yellow and blue. In this case, blue=cyan, yellow=yellow, and red=magenta. So it’s a shift to the subtractive model of this theory. > > The hypothesis is that a spectrum has elemental colors that can be combined (or subtracted) to make the rest. > > The theory is that this is empirically evident, very intuitively even, buy mixing pigments or shining gels of light on top of each other… or using a prism to separate white light into the spectrum. > > It’s an entire model of how our eyes/brain perceive this part of the electromagnetic spectrum. If you then want to get into the deeper, more fundamental theories of what color is, then you have far more learning and understanding to do (The electromagnetic spectrum; the visible spectrum; the emission, absorption and reflection of light; etc…) > > A fundamental theory is something you learn toward, every sharpening your understanding; not something you _start_ with, ironically. I wouldn’t normally say that knowing what the consistent observations are constitutes understanding of the theory. But the OP doesn’t specify a definition for ‘theory’ or ‘understanding’, so your interpretation is as valid as anyone’s. And that makes it difficult to answer the OP. Even when restricted to scientific theory, the responses have shown that there are differences in the meaning of the word theory in different areas of science. As far as the word understanding goes, there’s a continuum of definitions. At the bottom, minimal knowledge of a theory is a better understanding than something that is a complete misunderestimation. At the top, complete and total understanding is usually hubris. Or more simply put, “I don’t understand the question.” ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/48 "2011-05-24T06:25:08Z")
> [@Dervorin](#): > > For example, there’s the Big Bang Theory, which at its very simplest level is summed up by Wikipedia thusly: Based on the various threads we get in this forum about the Big Bang Theory, I’d say it’s not a good example of the theory everyone can understand. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/49 "2011-05-24T12:51:48Z")
> [@Francis\_Vaughan](#): > > A demon/spirit theory of disease is never going to be falsifiable - mainly because you can invoke capricious behaviour on the part of the spirit/demon to explain any result you get. So it isn’t a theory. Theology perhaps, but scientific theory, no. It is a theory according to the dictionary definition of the word ‘theory’ and answers the OP, as I feel most people can understand it, along with many other related theories based on ‘myths’. It may not qualify as a scientific theory, but that was not what was asked. Scientific theory may not be able to satisfy the OP as it requires the learning of the validity of science and the very young don’t have that. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/50 "2011-05-24T13:23:34Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > I love this. Mind if I use this explanation (with all due credit to here) to help others understand how the scientific method works? Please do. I’m glad you like it. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/51 "2011-05-24T13:47:31Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > You may not understand the inverse square law and its implications, you may not understand _why_ there should be a force of gravity (heck! Newton himself did not understand that), … Heck, I don’t think anyone today understands \*why \*there is gravity, other than in the weak anthropic sense of “why”. “Why” questions are always the hardest because the search for a cause drives to an infinite regress. Ultimately you get to “It’s a fundamental property of the universe.” And as your science improves, you learn that your former “fundamental property” has some complex causation which in turn rests on what your new improved science calls “fundamental properties”. Lather rinse repeat. My personal take is there really is some set of things called opaque “fundamental properties”, many of which are as yet not fully known to us. Other scientists, philosophers, & epistemologists would argue it really \*is \*an infinite regress. There is also the eternal confusion between “why” asking about causation and “why” asking about purpose. The latter form is irrelevant to the physical sciences, but may be the more important form of “why” when dealing with social or biological sciences. For example, in the hoary old “Why did the chicken cross the road?” joke, the answers I’ve heard are about 80% purpose & about 20% causation. ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/52 "2011-05-24T13:53:34Z")
My favorite, easy to understand theory goes [like this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs). ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/53 "2011-05-24T14:14:57Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > It may not qualify as a scientific theory, but that was not what was asked. Scientific theory may not be able to satisfy the OP as it requires the learning of the validity of science and the very young don’t have that. Quite true. I was doing my usual over enthusiastic spiel about science and confuting theory and scientific theory. ---
**Author:** ![Zeldar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b77776/32.png) [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/54 "2011-05-24T14:36:17Z")
As has already been eloquently mentioned, there are definition issues with terms in the OP’s question. Key among them, as I see it, are _theory_, _everyone_ and _understand_, with a possible additional one for _example_. May I suggest that any theory put forward that involved an inventor, discoverer, or original postulator, already escapes the concept of _everyone_ since it took that original person to point out that such a theory was possible. Referring back to my simplistic earlier post, I would suggest that unless children, primitives, mentally challenged or otherwise restricted in their worldview types are to be included in _everyone_, then the OP needs some major restrictions added before a meaningful _example_ can be presented. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/55 "2011-05-24T15:28:58Z")
> [@Zeldar](#): > > May I suggest that any theory put forward that involved an inventor, discoverer, or original postulator, already escapes the concept of _everyone_ since it took that original person to point out that such a theory was possible. > > Referring back to my simplistic earlier post, I would suggest that unless children, primitives, mentally challenged or otherwise restricted in their worldview types are to be included in _everyone_, then the OP needs some major restrictions added before a meaningful _example_ can be presented. I still put forth demon/spirit theory as a solution to the OP, as this is very possibly the earliest form of cognition/learning and may happen in the womb and may be why we learn to use out senses and minds. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/56 "2011-05-24T16:28:29Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#): > > My favorite, easy to understand theory goes [like this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs). Darn, I wanted to post that. Ahem. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/57 "2011-05-24T17:29:28Z")
> [@Zeldar](#): > > May I suggest that any theory put forward that involved an inventor, discoverer, or original postulator, already escapes the concept of _everyone_ since it took that original person to point out that such a theory was possible. 😕 Surely just because someone had to be the first to come up with a theory, it does not follow that other people cannot understand it. I am fairly sure the OP must mean a theory that is understandable by everyone (which I think we can safely take to mean non-retarded human adults) once it has been clearly explained to them However, then we run into the issue that I mentioned in my first post. Almost every reasonably intelligent adult can understand almost any theory (well, maybe not QM :p), provided they put enough time and effort (maybe sometimes several years of dedicated study) into it. ---
**Author:** ![Zeldar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b77776/32.png) [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/58 "2011-05-24T17:52:00Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > 😕 Surely just because someone had to be the first to come up with a theory, it does not follow that other people cannot understand it. I am fairly sure the OP must mean a theory that is understandable by everyone (which I think we can safely take to mean non-retarded human adults) once it has been clearly explained to them > > However, then we run into the issue that I mentioned in my first post. Almost every reasonably intelligent adult can understand almost any theory (well, maybe not QM :p), provided they put enough time and effort (maybe sometimes several years of dedicated study) into it. I understand the confusion over my statement, and it’s probably tied into a tacit assumption I have been making about the OP’s query. I think I have been assuming the _theory_ has some real world relevance and is _accepted_ as valid by an educated or intelligent subset of human beings. (I’m not trying to be snide or cute here, honest.) Before Newton’s proclamations on Gravity or any of the other facets of Physics and Mathematics that he propounded, some people may have had some intuitive ideas along similar lines, but I question whether they would have _understood_ the final proposition before Newton explained it in detail. Similar things may be said about Einstein, Hawking, and other such geniuses. It seems to me that most of the “intuitively obvious” theories we have had to work hard to debunk have been wrong! Flat Earth as a case in point. So as long as _theory_ doesn’t imply _valid_ I guess anybody could _understand_ it. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783/59 "2011-05-24T19:30:56Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Heck, I don’t think anyone today understands \*why \*there is gravity, other than in the weak anthropic sense of “why”. Maybe so, but when Newton initially published the _Principia_ he did get a lot of flack for not being able to _explain_ gravity (or rather, why things fall down) in the sense that the rival theories of the time actually did purport to do: Aristotelian theory explained it in terms of the natural propensity of earthy matter to seek its natural place (which was tied in with an elaborate and sophisticated theory of the nature of substance and causation); Cartesian mechanical theory explained it in terms of etheric particles swirling in a vortex around the Earth pushing objects down by direct contact. Newton himself was aware of this as a “defect” of his theory, and even did attempt to develop his own version of an “etheric pressure” account of gravity. However he could not make it work in such a way as would fit his equations and abandoned it, saying to his critics, in effect, “No, I can’t explain this force, but it must be real because the equations fit the facts.” That is what the whole “_Hypotheses non fingo_” thing was about. Newton won, of course, because his equations did indeed fit the facts (observed planetary, and other, motions), and with far greater quantitative precision than any other theory could offer, and for the next couple of centuries people forgot about this _defect_ of Newtonian theory, or else tried to make it out to be a virtue (as some people today try to make out the incomprehensibility of QM to be a virtue). However, both General Relativity and theories of gravity that appeal to notions like gravitons and the Higgs boson do seem to be attempts to explain gravity, the causes of gravity, in the sense that Newton failed to do. I suppose you are right that all scientific explanations eventually reach their limit where you have to say “Well, it just is!”, but that does not mean that you should just stop trying to explain when you reach such limits. Indeed, pushing against, and sometimes going beyond such limits is one of the most important ways that science advances. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-example-of-a-theory-that-everyone-can-understand/582783.md?page=2)