Do books really replace observations?
In my opinion, books do not replace observations, but supplement them. It is a rather unique and indispensable way to transfer knowledge. In the deepest sense of the word.
It is possible to discuss separately and for a long time why it happens, so let's omit this fact. And let's say conventionally that the "format" of the book allows not just to transfer information. Through the book is transmitted complex knowledge that can be felt and visualized in the mind. As a result, the book can be a real reflection of a certain time slice or situation. And as a result, most fully convey the experience of another person. As if the reader has actually experienced it;
On the other hand, another level of knowledge, it is your own experience. If the book perfectly conveys the other person's observation, allowing the reader to experience it "as if you were there", the real observation will still be more complete. Because there is a difference to feel the wind, or to imagine how it feels. Seeing the light, or imagining what it looks like. That's why it's impossible to convey 100% of the observation in a book.
As a result, the right attitude to the book from this position will be: use it as a substitute for experience only if it is impossible to experience it yourself. Otherwise, you risk severely impoverishing your life by crossing out the possibility of personally touching something. Use the books in tandem with your personal experiences. This way you get the most complete picture of the world, enriching your inner world.
P.S.: Of course I mean quality literature. Alas, there are such samples that are not a substitute for observations, but will only cause bewilderment. But unfortunately, there is nothing to discuss here.
Author: Sergey Ulyashenkov