Historical facts are all well-documented online, so they are the easiest to “derive”—just look them up and check the sources for credibility. In contrast, this approach rarely helps if you want to solve but a trivial math or physics problem, there you have to internalize the relevant knowledge.
Historical facts are all well-documented online, so they are the easiest to “derive”—just look them up and check the sources for credibility.
I am having trouble reconciling the notion that re-acquiring the datapoint by rote memorization (after researching a means of accessing the datapoint) is a form of “derivation” with my understanding of what the word “derive” means in this context.
Would you agree that if you do not have access to the datapoint that FDR’s crippling was the result of Polio, you cannot derive that knowledge “from first principles”?
Would you agree that if you do not have access to the datapoint that FDR’s crippling was the result of Polio, you cannot derive that knowledge “from first principles”?
If you first principle is “look it up”, then why not?
A research methodology is not a first principle. A first principle is “a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.”
OK, now we are at the definitions stage, so there is no point in arguing about them. Just ask EY which definition he meant, if any, and be done with it.
I’m the one who introduced the term “first principles”, so I am the one who should be asked what definition I meant. Given that my original point was differentiating between the two value-sets, and that I was trying to convey the distinction between “figuring it out for yourself” as opposed to “being exposed to the answer”—I have to say that your continuing to re-introduce the notion of “look it up” just… isn’t very helpful to the conversation.
I ask you again; would you agree that unless you were exposed to the datapoint of what caused FDR’s paralysis, you could have no way of figuring it out for yourself?
(Note: “looking it up” is not an answer to this question. That would be a form of getting exposure to the datapoint.)
If you aren’t interested in how I define a term that I introduced to the discussion as opposed to how someone who never used said term would define it, I don’t know what you’re doing but I do know two things:
He could have picked some data you could not look up.
There’s a definition problem here, which I later on related, and gave a better way of asking the question. Short of having access to the information of what caused FDR’s paralysis, how would one go about “figuring out” that it was Polio?
Historical facts are all well-documented online, so they are the easiest to “derive”—just look them up and check the sources for credibility. In contrast, this approach rarely helps if you want to solve but a trivial math or physics problem, there you have to internalize the relevant knowledge.
I am having trouble reconciling the notion that re-acquiring the datapoint by rote memorization (after researching a means of accessing the datapoint) is a form of “derivation” with my understanding of what the word “derive” means in this context.
Would you agree that if you do not have access to the datapoint that FDR’s crippling was the result of Polio, you cannot derive that knowledge “from first principles”?
If you first principle is “look it up”, then why not?
A research methodology is not a first principle. A first principle is “a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.”
That is why not.
OK, now we are at the definitions stage, so there is no point in arguing about them. Just ask EY which definition he meant, if any, and be done with it.
I’m the one who introduced the term “first principles”, so I am the one who should be asked what definition I meant. Given that my original point was differentiating between the two value-sets, and that I was trying to convey the distinction between “figuring it out for yourself” as opposed to “being exposed to the answer”—I have to say that your continuing to re-introduce the notion of “look it up” just… isn’t very helpful to the conversation.
I ask you again; would you agree that unless you were exposed to the datapoint of what caused FDR’s paralysis, you could have no way of figuring it out for yourself?
(Note: “looking it up” is not an answer to this question. That would be a form of getting exposure to the datapoint.)
I don’t care about your personal definition since the original statement was EY’s.
If you aren’t interested in how I define a term that I introduced to the discussion as opposed to how someone who never used said term would define it, I don’t know what you’re doing but I do know two things:
It is not engaging in rational discourse.
I will not be a participant in it.
You’re correct but you should have assumed The Least Convenient Possible World. He could have picked some data you could not look up.
There’s a definition problem here, which I later on related, and gave a better way of asking the question. Short of having access to the information of what caused FDR’s paralysis, how would one go about “figuring out” that it was Polio?