Not really.

All I was stating was that I thought your comparison was off. He's saying he can learn things about it, not necessarily be as GOOD at it as somebody else(Athletics example).

Smell example: Still a bit meh on it. New Jersey doesn't have a distinct smell, as the "smell" would be a conglomeration of a number of things. Tell me it smells like wet cat, a big diaper, and your mothers cooch, and I'd be pretty familiar with it and could imagine it. Does that mean I've SMELLED New Jersey? No, unless we're counting the countless molecules of oxygen I've breathed in that have been there too(Damnable olfactory functions!).

I'm really not disagreeing with you too much here, I just felt like Stevers was conveying that he could learn about something without doing it, which I agree with. If you're a Locke-fag, which you partially sound like, you'd state that knowledge comes directly from, and ONLY from experience. I'm not too much a fan of that, knowing that you can receive knowledge in multiple ways.

Your final paragraph made me chuckle because it make 0% sense to me.


(No insult to you)"Let me put this another way then. If what you're saying is true, then you should be able to know exactly how Jersey smells without visiting it, right? So if you smelled something similar, you could say, "Hey, this smells like Jersey."? I don't think so. I think you know stuff (like a smell or how to throw a football) better through observation and experience than someone who only reads about it."

Wat. I never said I could smell Jersey without being there. You could describe it to me in ways that may relate to things I'm familiar with(Lots of teachers do this for a variety of subjects). Once again, I agree - I haven't "Smelled Jersey by being there in the location and taking a waft of the conglomeration of scents in a select area"(I doubt the whole thing smells the same, like Detroit[Smells like nigger]).


"I think you know stuff (like a smell or how to throw a football) better through observation and experience than someone who only reads about it."

That. I like that. This is the most clear statement in your whole post. Perfect. Yeah, you could probably play football better by playing it over and over(Since it's a physical reaction type thing involving the attempt to make certain actions instinct) than someone who just read about it. Is it possible there's a Braniac somewhere who can read intricate details about a topic and then immediately play with the abilities he has read? Maybe. Probably not. So I'm not really arguing against you there. Smell thing, already mentioned. I think the disconnect we're having is this, and it's probably because I'm too busy being an asshole, and not clearly portraying my thoughts: I think you can gather information about something just as well indirectly as directly. I don't need to put my hand on a hot stove to know it hurts, I can watch some other idiot do it and I go "Wow I know how to act around that now". That situation isn't supposed to apply to all of this, as I'm just talking specifically about "information gathering", not body improvement, skill gaining, etc.

So yeah.

You're right.