The term "lifelong learning" has been on everyone's lips for the last decade. The ancients used to say there is no age for learning. I think it is a very correct principle; otherwise, how could branches of science like physics and other sciences progress so much? Instead of questioning this, I tried to put pen to paper to think about how the interaction of the matter should be.
One observation I have made in societies like ours is that any subject gains importance when it comes up and when we experience it. In other words, we think about what should be done after encountering an event or problem and try to implement it. In my terminology, this becomes learning through experience... However, shouldn't a learned and taught knowledge and its examples make us have learned and planned before experiencing the event? This approach lies in the essence of planning and risk analysis.
On the other hand, another truth is that humanity over time needs to build new things from what it has experienced and add new concepts to existing knowledge. For example, when facing a new virus like corona, understanding its structure and seeking a solution can be added as new knowledge. However, if the experience of a pandemic situation has been lived and learned globally years before, then the pandemic management plan must exist before encountering it. This example alone shows how profound the question in the title is.
Perhaps the question should be asked as, "Is it to learn what has been learned when living, or to learn new knowledge while experiencing it?" I believe we should be able to learn what has been learned beforehand and only try to learn new knowledge while experiencing it. Otherwise, we will experience a lot of time and energy loss and struggle to rediscover what is already known.
Dr. Bilinç Dolmacı
