Can first principles thinking help students develop independent thinking skills and avoid relying on 'standard answers'?

Of course, and this can be said to be the most core value of first-principles thinking in learning.

Let me give you an analogy, and you'll understand.

Most of us learn through what's more like "analogical thinking" or "empiricism." It's like a chef's apprentice: the master gives him a cookbook that says, "Step one, add three spoonfuls of oil; step two, when the oil is hot, add ginger and garlic; step three, add meat and stir-fry until it changes color..." He follows these instructions and can make a decent dish. Here, the "cookbook" is like the "standard answers" or "solution formulas" we encounter in learning.

This method is fast and effective, allowing you to quickly pass exams and solve problems that have established patterns. But the problem is, if the cookbook is lost today, or if he's asked to make a new dish, or to substitute chicken for pork, he'll be stumped. This is because he only knows "how to do it," not "why it's done that way." He doesn't know why he needs three spoonfuls of oil (instead of one or five), why he has to wait for the oil to heat up (can't he use cold oil?), or why the meat needs to be stir-fried until it changes color (can't he just stew it directly?).

"First-principles thinking," on the other hand, is like that "master chef" who isn't satisfied with just the cookbook. He delves into the most fundamental things:

• What is the role of oil? It's a heat transfer medium and adds flavor.
• How do different oil temperatures affect ingredients? High temperatures can instantly sear meat juices (Maillard reaction), while low temperatures slowly infuse flavors.
• What is the essence of ginger and garlic? They are aromatics, and their flavors are fat-soluble, so they need to be sautéed in oil to release their aroma.

Once he understands these most basic, fundamental "axioms," the cookbook becomes merely a reference for him. He can flexibly create new dishes based on the ingredients at hand. Even if he encounters a completely unfamiliar ingredient, he can analyze its basic properties (such as water content, fiber thickness) and deduce the most suitable cooking method.

Back to learning:

• Students who rely on "standard answers" are memorizing physics formulas, historical dates, and solutions to math problems. If the problem is slightly altered, they're lost. Because they only have that "cookbook" in their minds.
• Students who apply "first-principles thinking" will ask: How was this physics formula derived from the most basic laws (like Newton's three laws)? What were the fundamental reasons for this historical event (was it economic, political, or cultural conflict)? What is the core mathematical idea behind this problem (is it transformation or the combination of numbers and shapes)?

Once you get used to thinking this way, breaking down knowledge into its most primitive bricks and then rebuilding it with logic, you will find that:

1. You no longer need to rote memorize. Because you can "derive" most knowledge yourself.
2. You gain the ability to solve unknown problems. Because you've mastered the "fishing rod," not just the "fish." When faced with new problems, you can start from the most fundamental principles and gradually find solutions.
3. You truly acquire the ability to think independently. You no longer blindly believe in authority or ready-made answers; your judgments have a solid foundation, rather than being built on sand.

So, yes, first principles is a hammer, specifically designed to smash the shell of "standard answers," allowing you to see the truly brilliant, most fundamental core of knowledge within. This process might be slower and harder than simply memorizing answers, but once you master it, your level of learning and your way of seeing the world will be completely different.