Even in your hand-picked scenario your logic is still bunk. Rockets are not launched on “intuition,” they are launched with math that is then checked by countless people and computers. If you are at any point winging it during a rocket launch, you have already failed.
You are making up a claim I never stated. I never said that “rockets are launched on intuition” , please refrain from using strawman-arguments like that. It appears you do not recognize the value of science communication at all. In my opinion, learning new things is inherently a good thing no matter the topic. This is because modern science progresses in part because of the application of concepts from one field of study in another. Since I consider the advancement of science to be the No. 1 priority, I support the idea that everybody should learn as much as possible, and not solely specialize in their field. Of course this generalization is only true to a certain extent, since specialization is necessary for modern science.
In essence, I think that every person should be able to learn as much as possible and people should know the basics of other fields of study than the one they are specialized in. Building intuition is literally learning the most essential things and learning to apply them too. By learning how to apply those concepts, it will occur that people try to apply the learned concepts from other fields to their own specialization and as explained above I consider that to be beneficial.
In addition to all that it obviously also serves to make science appeal to the public and therefore a) prevent hostility against science (under CoVid we all saw what that leads to) and b) get more people interested on science to further accelerate human progress.
You’re completely missing my point. I specifically said if your goal is to learn guitar most efficiently, any time spent playing games to learn “discipline” would be better spent actually learning the guitar. It was not saying one has any more worth than the other.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, what I was trying to imply is that people can consider the goal of learning how to play better an inherent goal, just like they can with learning an instrument. By that I mean that it requires no further reason to learn the instrument/the game. This is evidently the case with learning to play an instrument. Therefore if you want to condemn games for this reason of not having a purpose, you would have to say the same about instruments. I suppose you could just deny any and all leisure activities based on that, but I doubt that was what you were trying to imply.
An educating effect that you have not demonstrated in any way. Sekiro will not help you learn guitar, even if it is more fun. Hell, Guitar Hero probably wouldn’t help you learn guitar and that game is literally a gamified version of the instrument.
Again, I can only repeat the argument about intuition. Having a general overview about a topic is beneficial to learning the details. I hope this is as obvious to you as it is to me. Without intuition it often feels like the details you are learning lack any purpose and this makes learning a lot more difficult.
deleted by creator
You are making up a claim I never stated. I never said that “rockets are launched on intuition” , please refrain from using strawman-arguments like that. It appears you do not recognize the value of science communication at all. In my opinion, learning new things is inherently a good thing no matter the topic. This is because modern science progresses in part because of the application of concepts from one field of study in another. Since I consider the advancement of science to be the No. 1 priority, I support the idea that everybody should learn as much as possible, and not solely specialize in their field. Of course this generalization is only true to a certain extent, since specialization is necessary for modern science.
In essence, I think that every person should be able to learn as much as possible and people should know the basics of other fields of study than the one they are specialized in. Building intuition is literally learning the most essential things and learning to apply them too. By learning how to apply those concepts, it will occur that people try to apply the learned concepts from other fields to their own specialization and as explained above I consider that to be beneficial.
In addition to all that it obviously also serves to make science appeal to the public and therefore a) prevent hostility against science (under CoVid we all saw what that leads to) and b) get more people interested on science to further accelerate human progress.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, what I was trying to imply is that people can consider the goal of learning how to play better an inherent goal, just like they can with learning an instrument. By that I mean that it requires no further reason to learn the instrument/the game. This is evidently the case with learning to play an instrument. Therefore if you want to condemn games for this reason of not having a purpose, you would have to say the same about instruments. I suppose you could just deny any and all leisure activities based on that, but I doubt that was what you were trying to imply.
Again, I can only repeat the argument about intuition. Having a general overview about a topic is beneficial to learning the details. I hope this is as obvious to you as it is to me. Without intuition it often feels like the details you are learning lack any purpose and this makes learning a lot more difficult.