Can First Principles Thinking Replace Socratic Questioning?

Of course not, these two are more like partners than interchangeable rivals.

Let me give you an analogy to help you understand:

Socratic questioning is like a skilled detective interrogating a case. Its task is to constantly ask, "Why?", "Are you sure?", "Are there other possibilities?". Through a series of questions, it strips away all the disguises, assumptions, and irrationalities of a complex case (or an idea), finally revealing its core, most authentic part. This process emphasizes "scrutiny" and "excavation," aiming to uncover the truth of the matter.

First Principles thinking, on the other hand, is like an architect building an unprecedented house. This architect doesn't care how others build houses (e.g., "traditionally, you should use bricks"). They directly ask: "What is the essence of building a house? It needs a stable structure that can provide shelter. What materials can achieve this goal?" They might discover that a new composite material is cheaper, stronger, and more environmentally friendly than bricks. They start from fundamental needs and physical laws, then "re-create" a solution. This process emphasizes "creation" and "construction."

You see, their relationship becomes clear:

You can use the "detective's" methods (Socratic questioning) to assist the "architect's" work.

When you want to solve a problem using First Principles, you need to arm yourself with Socratic questioning, constantly asking yourself, "Why must it be this way?" "What is the most fundamental purpose of this thing?", thereby gradually digging beneath the surface to find that core, indivisible "first principle."

So, Socratic questioning is your "drill" for excavating the foundation, while First Principles thinking is the approach to "building a new structure" once you've reached the most solid bedrock. One is responsible for "digging deep," the other for "building anew"; they are a golden partnership.