Practical Skills

This is an excellent question because it touches upon a core contradiction in how we think and act. It's like wanting to build a ship for a long voyage, but being unable to be 100% certain if the wood...

They are not contradictory at all; they are complementary and very closely related, like a set of tools in a toolbox, each with a different purpose.

This is a very interesting question. To explain it clearly, we first need to talk about how people usually make decisions. Most of the time, we make decisions based on "experience," "common sense," or...

Hey, this is a fascinating and crucial question. Let me try to explain it with a simple analogy. Imagine you're building a house. A "fact" is the solid foundation beneath your feet, the hard, objectiv...

Here's how you can understand it: Imagine you have an exquisitely built sports car model made of LEGOs in front of you. Most people would see "a sports car.

Hello, this is quite an interesting question, and it's a method we often unconsciously use in our daily lives. To peel back a "conclusion" layer by layer until you see the innermost "fact," my persona...

Simply put, relying on "analogical reasoning" is like "copying homework." Think about how we usually solve problems. Most of the time, we observe how others do things, and then we follow suit, perhaps...

Let's put it this way: these two concepts are essentially two different "problem-solving operating systems" in our brains. "Analogical thinking" is like "copying homework.

Absolutely not. They are a collaborative relationship, not a substitute for each other. You can think of it this way: First-principles are like the underlying logic of a recipe, such as the Maillard r...

Hello, this is an interesting question. I'll try to explain it with a real-life example, which might make it easier to understand. Imagine you want to figure out: "If I add yeast, will the bread defin...

Hello, this is an interesting question. Simply put, they are not the same thing, but they do have a certain connection. You can think of it this way: The First Law of Thermodynamics, in essence, is th...

Haha, that's an excellent question, and one that many people easily confuse. I'll do my best to explain my understanding in plain language. You can think of it this way: Empirical Formula = The 'Trade...

Hello, that's a great and very representative question. I'll try to explain it in simple terms so you can grasp why this thing is so important in theoretical physics.

Let's put it this way: first principles themselves are not a tool to "eliminate" uncertainty. Quite the opposite, they "predict" the inevitable existence of uncertainty from the most fundamental level...

It depends on the situation. Within a certain scope, it absolutely is; but in a broader context, it is not. You can understand it this way: imagine "first principles" as the fundamental rules at the b...

Let's put it this way, it's like learning to cook. If you just follow a recipe step by step—for instance, if it says "add a spoonful of salt," you add a spoonful.

Let's put it this way: these two concepts are like two completely different approaches to "learning how to cook." "Inductive Reasoning" is like "learning to cook by following recipes.

Hello, this is an interesting question. I'll try to explain my understanding in plain language. You can think of it this way: First Principles Thinking, to put it bluntly, means you act like a "contra...

That's an excellent question, one that immediately hits upon a core contradiction. My understanding is that it depends on how we define "first" in "first principles.

Absolutely, and the differences are quite significant. I'll try to explain it to you in plain language. You can imagine "First Principles" as the "foundation" of a house.