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 important sources, and examples as such are numerous. Therefore, I think whether one source is more important than the other depends on circumstances.
在一般情況下，從書(shū)中獲得的知識(shí)，有一個(gè)更廣泛的范圍比從經(jīng)驗(yàn)中獲得的。我們現(xiàn)在生活在一個(gè)世界印刷不再昂貴的時(shí)代，和印刷品都是現(xiàn)成的。在圖書(shū)館，我們可以學(xué)到幾乎所有的東西，只有當(dāng)我們已經(jīng)獲得了基本的閱讀技能，哲學(xué)，歷史，文學(xué)，物理，數(shù)學(xué)，化學(xué)，生物學(xué)，地理，人類(lèi)學(xué)，和名單將繼續(xù)下去。不同于個(gè)人的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，個(gè)人的經(jīng)驗(yàn)是有限的，書(shū)籍似乎有幾乎沒(méi)有限制。坐在當(dāng)?shù)貓D書(shū)館，我們幾乎可以通過(guò)一個(gè)有趣的地理百科全書(shū)到處旅行，當(dāng)然，幾乎沒(méi)有費(fèi)用。另一方面，它可以說(shuō)，有時(shí)從經(jīng)驗(yàn)中獲得的知識(shí)是更深入和更全面的比從書(shū)中獲得的。這是真的，不是每一件事都包含在書(shū)中。如何處理個(gè)人理財(cái)，如何應(yīng)對(duì)當(dāng)前的社會(huì)趨勢(shì)，甚至如何最有效地組織我們自己的思想，以及無(wú)數(shù)其他的事情，很少能被發(fā)現(xiàn)，深入和全面地討論，我們必須通過(guò)我們自己的經(jīng)驗(yàn)來(lái)獲得知識(shí)。而令人悲哀的是，即使是一些包含在書(shū)中的知識(shí)，也需要進(jìn)一步理解，主要是通過(guò)經(jīng)驗(yàn)。對(duì)于哪個(gè)來(lái)源更重要，答案不同。有些知識(shí)只能通過(guò)書(shū)本獲得。很難想象，我們能有一個(gè)良好的歷史，而不讀書(shū)的理解。另一方面，一些知識(shí)只能通過(guò)經(jīng)驗(yàn)獲得。當(dāng)我們?cè)囍W(xué)游泳時(shí)，僅僅是一個(gè)詳細(xì)的游泳技巧，甚至是豐富的插圖，是最無(wú)用的。我們必須跳到水里，然后用經(jīng)驗(yàn)來(lái)獲得知識(shí)。我們必須使用書(shū)籍和經(jīng)驗(yàn)作為來(lái)源同時(shí)得到我們想要知道的。以物理為例，書(shū)本和經(jīng)驗(yàn)都是同樣重要的來(lái)源，而例子如多。因此，我認(rèn)為一個(gè)來(lái)源比另一個(gè)更重要的取決于情況。
