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 inpidual that is limited by the range of that inpidual, 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.

　　在一般情况下，从书中获得的知识，有一个更广泛的范围比从经验中获得的。我们现在生活在一个世界印刷不再昂贵的时代，和印刷品都是现成的。在图书馆，我们可以学到几乎所有的东西，只有当我们已经获得了基本的阅读技能，哲学，历史，文学，物理，数学，化学，生物学，地理，人类学，和名单将继续下去。不同于个人的经验，个人的经验是有限的，书籍似乎有几乎没有限制。坐在当地图书馆，我们几乎可以通过一个有趣的地理百科全书到处旅行，当然，几乎没有费用。另一方面，它可以说，有时从经验中获得的知识是更深入和更全面的比从书中获得的。这是真的，不是每一件事都包含在书中。如何处理个人理财，如何应对当前的社会趋势，甚至如何最有效地组织我们自己的思想，以及无数其他的事情，很少能被发现，深入和全面地讨论，我们必须通过我们自己的经验来获得知识。而令人悲哀的是，即使是一些包含在书中的知识，也需要进一步理解，主要是通过经验。对于哪个来源更重要，答案不同。有些知识只能通过书本获得。很难想象，我们能有一个良好的历史，而不读书的理解。另一方面，一些知识只能通过经验获得。当我们试着去学游泳时，仅仅是一个详细的游泳技巧，甚至是丰富的插图，是最无用的。我们必须跳到水里，然后用经验来获得知识。我们必须使用书籍和经验作为来源同时得到我们想要知道的。以物理为例，书本和经验都是同样重要的来源，而例子如多。因此，我认为一个来源比另一个更重要的取决于情况。