In general, knowledge gained from books has a wider range than that gained from experience. We now live in a world that typophile is no longer exorbitant, and that printed matters are readily available. In libraries, we can learn nearly everything only if we have already acquired basic reading skills, philosophy, history, literature, physics, mathematics, chemicals, biology, geography, anthropology, and the list will go on. Unlike the experience of an individual that is limited by the range of that individual, books seem to have almost no limitation. Sitting in the local library, we virtually can travel everywhere through an interesting geographic encyclopedia, and certainly, with nearly no expense at all.
On the other hand, it can be argued that sometimes knowledge gained from experience is much deeper and more comprehensive than that gained from books. It is quite true that not every thing is contained in books. How
to deal with personal finance, how to cope with current social trends, even how to most effectively organize our own mind, and numerous other things can seldom be found thoroughly and comprehensively discussed in books, we have to gain the knowledge by our own experience. And the sad news is that even some knowledge that is contained in books usually needs further comprehension, mainly through experience. As to which source is more important, the answers vary. Some knowledge can be acquired only through books. It's hard to imagine we can have a good understanding of history without reading books. On the other hand, some knowledge can be obtained only through experience. When we try to learn to swim, merely a detailed manual of swimming skills, even abundantly filled with illustrations, is at most useless. We have to jump into the water and then gain the knowledge with experience. We have to use books and experience as source simultaneously to get what we want to know. Take learning physics for example, both books and experiences are equally...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document