> I often get the feeling that in these circumstances people derive first principles from specific desired outcomes. That's a pretty normal way derive principl

> I often get the feeling that in these circumstances people derive first principles from specific desired outcomes. That's a pretty normal way derive principles, isn't it? You start with an observation, and then you recursively ask "why?" It's possible that your answers are wrong, or even that your observation itself is flawed, but the concept of deriving principles from outcomes isn't really flawed. Where else are they going to come from? Should people just pick principles at random and hope they're not terrible?