Joshua's view is that personal experience is not critical in building up one's "knowledge capital", he said the following in blogpastor's comment box:
"And the idea that experiencing something warrants one’s knowledge better is of course nonsense.
One knows the effects and danger of cocaine without the need to use them. One can describe such effects through tapping on the experiences of others without the need to experience it ourselves.
Experiencing it would just add to our memory capital but doesnt necessarily add to our knowledge capital. That means if u had already read about the effects of cocaine previously and then u take cocaine. Then you just gain an experience but that doesn’t add to your knowledge about what you already know about cocaine’s effects. You just had an additional memory (experience) but not necessarily knowledge. And you dont need to experience cocaine to really ‘appreciate’ its effect. Or without experiencing it doesn’t mean you cannot describe its effect accurately. In fact many time, one can describe the effects from reading about it than those who just experienced it."
The following is an excerpt of my reply to him on blogpastor:
"The so-called “knowledge capital” that you have from “tapping on the experiences of others without the need to experience it” yourself is just second-hand knowledge. The one with the personal experience does not just add to his “memory capital”; in fact he has the true knowledge capital."
Effectively, Andrei is saying that first-hand knowledge is so different from second-hand knowledge.