in which I requested people to point out where the argument was fallacious. Both Surabhi and Ravi explained it to me, and that's led me to the difference between information and knowledge.
Information is what is given to me about a topic; I then have to apply my thinking, and that leads to understanding. When I finally assimilate that understanding, I gain knowledge. (Of course, being me, I might forget it too, but that's another topic.)
I find that I am not able to *rationally* know things until I am able to *intuitively* know them...to somehow assimilate them into my consciousness is the only way I can truly KNOW something. Until then, it just resides in a corner of my mind. I know that "intuition" as such might often lead me into wrong ideas and notitons...but I have to internalize something, before I feel I truly know it ...in my being, and not just in my brain.
Also, if it is a process I am learning (HTML code, or operating the DVD recorder), I have to repeat the process several times before I can master it. My learning curve is rather slow...and I don't want to accelerate it, either, I want to learn at my own pace, to be sure of what I learn. An erratic memory plays enough havoc with my learning without my jeopardizing it further with short cuts!
How do YOU learn something? It's a topic that fascinates me!