Practical knowledge is more important than bookish knowledge
Debate Rounds (3)
While I don't doubt the importance of both, I think at the very least the knowledge which comes from books is equal to or superior than the knowledge from experience.
Nobody wants a doctor who uses experience as his teacher and throws away theory or book knowledge, just as nobody wants a doctor who only has book knowledge but given the choice, people prefer the person fresh out of medical school than the guy who has learned heart surgery by experience.
Book knowledge is good in many respects. It allows you to learn from the experiences of others. Human knowledge is largely transmitted through books, though some can only be learned through osmosis and experience. I would prefer the doctor who has the experience of a thousand teachers he can draw from, which he has read in books, to the doctor who only has his own experience to draw on.
This isn't only relevant to medicine. Surely the mathematician can learn more through books and perform more advanced calculations than the one who only has the experience of counting to draw on. Surely we'd rather NASA use the data collected before them to send a man to space than to build a rocket from scratch and try to do things strictly based on experience they and they alone had.
Did our ancestors die in vain? Do we allow their knowledge to be erased and just depend on our own experience. The technological age we live in is a result of accumulated knowledge, had mankind relied merely on experience for everything, we'd still be cavemen, having to learn how to do everything from scratch, every single time a new person is born and an old person dies.
My opponent asks that we spit on the grave of those who have written their hard earned knowledge down for us to draw from, but I say we should move forward holding the hands of the dead. We should carry their knowledge forward and therefore give them eternal life.
Coming back to the point .
Reasons why practical knowledge is better than bookish knowledge -
1. Does not require mugging up
2. Knowledge retains in mind
3. Develops a better understanding.
Just to make point no 4 clear . Note: here by practical knowledge I mean the education or the knowledge gained by the student by practicing something like some activities or experiments etc
4. We all know practice makes a man perfect. Eg go on reading a guide book for new language without speaking that language at all and you won't see progress . Speak that language daily and you will see the improvement . And u can learn any language by conversing with the people who know .
5. Involves application and deals with real life situations.
Eg . Learning about facts and theories are not really of any use unless you are aware of their application in real life.
Sir Isaac Newton gave the theory of gravity after he EXPERIENCED it by noticing Apple falling down . You cannot explain gravity without dropping a thing .
6. Also practicals are also very interesting . Cummon yaar don't field trips,projects,experiments interest you more than books,assignments and lectures ?
7. Interactive education creates a deeper impact .
I cannot study chemistry more than 1 hour but yes I can easily spend an hour in chemistry lab experimenting .
Students studying the engine in books will not create an impact as much as a live engine will do .
For more you can visit www.listdose.com
All the theories have come from people after they have done the experiments .
History was written by people who had experienced it .
So I think students will be more keen in gaining education by learning it in a practical way !!
Drashti05 forfeited this round.
Bare assertion, not explained. I'm not even sure what mugging up means.
Knowledge also remains in the knowledge through book learning. I still remember when Katniss Everdeen from the hunger games, volunteered as tribute in place of her little sister. I remember complicated topics on a variety of subjects, merely from book knowledge. I admit I could sharpen my knowledge of psychology a bit by observing it personally, but I couldn't have figured out complicated portions of it, such as all of Jung's archetypes without reading, nor can you merely practice calculus and learn it, without a book. Though certainly the opposite is possibe.
It doesn't create a better understanding than book knowledge. You can try to fold an origami penguin as much as you want and you'll never gain as clear of an understanding as going to an origami book, where you can build one without any practical experience ever.
Actually the best memory system I know of is with flash cards and seems to work better than learning through practice. Scientists haven't been able to find a better system for remembering things than the Leitner system to my knowledge. The system is as follows; "In this method flashcards are sorted into groups according to how well the learner knows each one in the Leitner's learning box. The learner tries to recall the solution written on a flashcard. If they succeed, they send the card to the next group. If they fail, they send it back to the first group. Each succeeding group has a longer period of time before the learner is required to revisit the cards." http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Book knowledge also does the same thing. The difference is it draws from several lifetimes of experience instead of just one mere lifetime. Also the story of Newton discovering gravity by observing an apple fall is mythology. It's a good story, but no evidence suggest it happened. It's more likely he got his theories from books on theories as well as deep thought.
No, books interest me more. I can read a book or listen to a lecture at my convenience, but I have to wait for the dairy farm to open to learn how to milk a cow, and they may not one me in there learning, while they have stuff they need to get done.
Actually I can listen to a podcast or read a book while on a bus or in a doctors office, time that would be wasted waiting anyway, where as practical knowledge can't be gained the same way.
VOTE FOR WYLTED
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were given essentially zero impact, meaning that Pro has failed to affirm the resolution. Merely stating reasons which *could* affirm the resolution does not demonstrate that they *do*. For example, "Does not require mugging up" is a link but it has zero impact. Why do I care that mugging up isn't required? How much weight does this point have? Con wins by default due to Pro giving no real impact to any of his/her arguments. Conduct to Con for Pro's round forfeit.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.