Are First Principles and Empiricism Contradictory?

In my opinion, these two are not contradictory at all; instead, they are a perfect match, indispensable to each other. Many people perceive them as conflicting, mainly because they equate "empiricism" with "acting purely on experience" or "rigid thinking," but these are actually two different things.

You can understand it this way:

First Principles Thinking is a way of "deconstructing problems." It's like a curious child who loves to get to the bottom of things, not satisfied with answers like "everyone does it this way." For example, when building a car, it wouldn't think, "Current cars are like this, how can I make it a little better?" Instead, it would ask, "What is the most fundamental purpose of a car? It's to move people from point A to point B. To achieve this goal, what are the most basic, unshakeable physical laws and materials involved?" It would deconstruct the car into its most fundamental components—metal, batteries, wheels, etc.—then calculate the cost of these raw materials and figure out the most efficient way to reassemble them. This is thinking from scratch, based solely on core facts.

Empiricism is a scientific method for "acquiring facts." So, when thinking with first principles, where do those "core facts" come from? Do they fall from the sky? No, they are derived through "empiricism." How do we know metal can bear weight? How do we know batteries can store energy? How do we know which materials are cheapest? All of these are obtained through observation, experimentation, and summarizing patterns—this is the realm of empiricism. It emphasizes that all knowledge comes from sensation and experience, and it demands reliance on facts and data.

So, you see, their relationship is like this:

• Empiricism is responsible for providing you with the most reliable and authentic "building blocks." It tells you that this block is square, red, and hard; that one is round, blue, and light. These are all verified facts.
• First Principles Thinking teaches you how to use these "building blocks" to construct a house never before seen. It tells you not to look at houses others have already built (that's just acting on existing experience), but to directly study the blocks in your hand and think, "With these most basic square and round blocks, what new things can I create?"

Let's take cooking as an example:

• Doing things purely by experience (bad "empiricism"): My grandma's braised pork recipe is written this way; not an extra drop of soy sauce or a gram less sugar is allowed. I just follow it, and it's always right. You can only ever replicate, never innovate.
• First Principles + Good Empiricism:
  1. First, through empiricism, you've tasted, seen, and cooked many times, and you've summarized some "facts": sugar provides sweetness and caramelization (Maillard reaction), soy sauce offers saltiness and color, cooking wine removes gamey odors, and long stewing tenderizes the meat. These form your "first principles" knowledge base for cooking.
  2. Then, when you want to create a completely new dish, you can apply first principles thinking: I want a sweet and savory, melt-in-your-mouth texture, but without the greasiness of traditional braised pork. Can I use the sweetness of certain fruits to replace some sugar? Can I use a higher-pressure pot to shorten stewing time while also rendering more fat?

You see, the entire innovation process is based on the "facts" about ingredients and cooking that you've gained through experience, while the methodology is the deconstruction and recombination of first principles.

To summarize:

First Principles Thinking doesn't oppose "empiricism" itself, but rather the misuse of "empiricism"—that is, thoughtlessly replicating past experiences and treating them as the sole dogma. True empiricism (as a scientific spirit) is the cornerstone of First Principles Thinking, providing it with a solid and reliable starting point.