Experience or Knowledge

**Lantigua** · 02-28-2009, 10:08 PM

I'm very much aware that in certain situations first hand experience is indispensable while in others having mere knowledge is more than enough. I'm also aware that in more than a few occasions our first hand experience can mislead us (ie. you visit Mexico City and felt safe the entire time you were there, so you conclude that Mexico City is as safe as New York City) and mere knowledge can also mislead us (ie. you know that Miami has one of the highest crime rates in America so you avoid vacationing there to not be a victim of a crime).

So, my question to all of you is, overall, which is more important?

Is experience more important or is knowledge good enough in order for us to understand most subjects/topics/the world we live in?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**zibber** · 03-01-2009, 01:34 AM

Snarky, philosophical answer: I'm not sure if I understand.. what knowledge would one have without empiry?

Banal: I think your example illustrates the problem with "knowledge", stuff you haven't been able to validate first-hand. The trick is always to be very careful with assumptions, be they yours or another's.

(ps. Wow, "empiry" is disused? It's quite acceptable to use in Dutch, so I figured its direct translation would have the same status in English. Looking it up out of curiosity, I find that it mostly appears as a nasty botch of "empire".)

**True Rune** · 03-01-2009, 01:47 AM

What knowledge can be confirmed without proper testing and gathering of data? It has to be experienced so that it can be known. (Subjectivity or no subjectivity.)

If you're asking in a "here and now" sense, I can't really say for sure. It's a good thing they can work together in order to form utility, but I can't say I lean either way.

**Thinker** · 03-01-2009, 02:04 AM

Real understanding only comes with experience.

I would define experience (in layman's terms) as knowledge with context.
Once you have context, often the knowledge you have takes on a much deeper meaning.

There is so much you are simply unable to learn from books, lectures or formal education...and much of it relates to context.

**RBM** · 03-01-2009, 06:15 PM

	Originally Posted by Lantigua To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, my question to all of you is, overall, which is more important? Is experience more important or is knowledge good enough in order for us to understand most subjects/topics/the world we live in?

Hmmm. you've framed the question as an 'OR', which raises a red flag for me.

The implication is one is better than another. I think it's fairy easy to see the fallacy in that - isn't it ?

nacht · 03-01-2009, 09:20 PM

Both are. One isn't "more" or "less" in the long run.

No matter how much you study Go academically, we still say "lose the first 100 games as quickly as you can" because there are some things that you still must learn by playing and no amount of academic study will teach you.

At the same time, when you get to a certain point in your game, you can't get better by "just" playing. You have to review, you have to analyze, you have to consider. You need to do practice problems, read books on technique, and review pro games.

They are synergistic in nature, one isn't "more important.'

02-28-2009, 10:08 PM	#1
Lantigua Member [02%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 90	I'm very much aware that in certain situations first hand experience is indispensable while in others having mere knowledge is more than enough. I'm also aware that in more than a few occasions our first hand experience can mislead us (ie. you visit Mexico City and felt safe the entire time you were there, so you conclude that Mexico City is as safe as New York City) and mere knowledge can also mislead us (ie. you know that Miami has one of the highest crime rates in America so you avoid vacationing there to not be a victim of a crime). So, my question to all of you is, overall, which is more important? Is experience more important or is knowledge good enough in order for us to understand most subjects/topics/the world we live in? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Lantigua is offline post a comment

03-01-2009, 01:34 AM	#2
zibber Core Member [408%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,346	Snarky, philosophical answer: I'm not sure if I understand.. what knowledge would one have without empiry? Banal: I think your example illustrates the problem with "knowledge", stuff you haven't been able to validate first-hand. The trick is always to be very careful with assumptions, be they yours or another's. (ps. Wow, "empiry" is disused? It's quite acceptable to use in Dutch, so I figured its direct translation would have the same status in English. Looking it up out of curiosity, I find that it mostly appears as a nasty botch of "empire".)
zibber is online post a comment

03-01-2009, 01:47 AM	#3
True Rune Core Member [201%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,063	What knowledge can be confirmed without proper testing and gathering of data? It has to be experienced so that it can be known. (Subjectivity or no subjectivity.) If you're asking in a "here and now" sense, I can't really say for sure. It's a good thing they can work together in order to form utility, but I can't say I lean either way.
True Rune is online post a comment

03-01-2009, 02:04 AM	#4
Thinker Core Member [117%] MBTI: INTj Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 4,695	Real understanding only comes with experience. I would define experience (in layman's terms) as knowledge with context. Once you have context, often the knowledge you have takes on a much deeper meaning. There is so much you are simply unable to learn from books, lectures or formal education...and much of it relates to context.
Thinker is offline post a comment

03-01-2009, 09:20 PM	#6
nacht Core Member [134%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 5,375	Both are. One isn't "more" or "less" in the long run. No matter how much you study Go academically, we still say "lose the first 100 games as quickly as you can" because there are some things that you still must learn by playing and no amount of academic study will teach you. At the same time, when you get to a certain point in your game, you can't get better by "just" playing. You have to review, you have to analyze, you have to consider. You need to do practice problems, read books on technique, and review pro games. They are synergistic in nature, one isn't "more important.'
nacht is offline post a comment