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，從書中獲得的知識，有一個更廣泛的范圍比從經(jīng)驗中獲得的。我們現(xiàn)在生活在一個世界印刷不再昂貴的時代，和印刷品都是現(xiàn)成的。在圖書館，我們可以學(xué)到幾乎所有的東西，只有當我們已經(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，人類學(xué)，和名單將繼續(xù)下去。不同于個人的經(jīng)驗，個人的經(jīng)驗是有限的，書籍似乎有幾乎沒有限制。坐在當?shù)貓D書館，我們幾乎可以通過一個有趣的地理百科全書到處旅行，當然，幾乎沒有費用。另一方面，它可以說，有時從經(jīng)驗中獲得的知識是更深入和更全面的比從書中獲得的。這是真的，不是每一件事都包含在書中。如何處理個人理財，如何應(yīng)對當前的社會趨勢，甚至如何最有效地組織我們自己的思想，以及無數(shù)其他的事情，很少能被發(fā)現(xiàn)，深入和全面地討論，我們必須通過我們自己的經(jīng)驗來獲得知識。而令人悲哀的是，即使是一些包含在書中的知識，也需要進一步理解，主要是通過經(jīng)驗。對于哪個來源更重要，答案不同。有些知識只能通過書本獲得。很難想象，我們能有一個良好的歷史，而不讀書的理解。另一方面，一些知識只能通過經(jīng)驗獲得。當我們試著去學(xué)游泳時，僅僅是一個詳細的游泳技巧，甚至是豐富的插圖，是最無用的。我們必須跳到水里，然后用經(jīng)驗來獲得知識。我們必須使用書籍和經(jīng)驗作為來源同時得到我們想要知道的。以物理為例，書本和經(jīng)驗都是同樣重要的來源，而例子如多。因此，我認為一個來源比另一個更重要的取決于情況。
