First Principles Thinking

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.

This is a very interesting question. I think Plato's Theory of Forms can be seen as a very ancient, very philosophical "spiritual ancestor" of First Principles Thinking.

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"...

Let's put it this way: you can imagine all our knowledge and understanding as a massive castle constructed from LEGO bricks. This castle might appear grand and intricate, with numerous beautiful tower...

Haha, that's an interesting question, and many people confuse these two concepts. I'll try to explain it to you in plain language. Imagine you have a LEGO car built right in front of you.

The most fundamental commonality between the two is that they both seek an absolutely reliable, unquestionable "starting point" or "origin." You can understand it this way: Descartes pondered at the t...

Let's put it this way: these two terms sound very similar, both seeming to refer to a 'most fundamental starting point,' but their origins and applications are actually quite different.

Ha, that's an interesting question. If I were to explain Aristotle's "First Principles" to an ordinary person, I think I'd put it this way: You can imagine it like playing the "getting to the bottom o...

Hello, when we talk about the philosophical origins of "First Principles," we need to rewind over two millennia, back to ancient Greece, to a figure named Aristotle.