Is learning by trial and error a valid way of learning?

[Shiroi Tora]

Yes, it is. The question, however, is one of efficiency and efficacy. Should the child be naturally intelligent, he will be curious. He will notice all things around him and will see patterns, correlations, and anomalies. He will be able to establish causation naturally. He will rarely need to learn through trail and error as he will have foresight.

To learn something through trail and error...I don't feel is efficient...unless the child can generalize the lesson and apply it to a larger group of thought. It is, otherwise, a way to learn how to NOT do something...there are an infinite number of ways to do something wrong.

Now, if we are talking about running mental trail and error experiments...that is a part of forethought. Having to experiment on something that had adequate evidence at hand and to not be able to figure out a correct path ahead of time is only an exercise in a method of learning for future situations where adequate evidence is not at hand. Learning through trail and error is more accidental I would think (we are talking children here...not part of the scientific method).

To learn through exploration of a successful person's method and examples of successful strategies in life is an effective and efficient way to learn. As one goes through life...many lessons present themselves (so long as the child questions the process in an attempt to delve into the methods or reasons used to establish cause and effect). To ignore those lessons is to ignore experience in life. I think that learning through exploration comes about naturally. All a child needs is opportunity. Yes, playing with children of equal cognitive capability is important...however...being with children of higher capabilities would benefit the child much more I would think.

[Nie]

It is valid when it is the only choice based on the circumstance. One cannot develop a complete plan out of elements that are all foreign to him/her, one can try to associate these to those that he/she is familiar with in terms of mechanics and from there you still end up with trial and error - but of course not a blind throw into the water but with some structure and then you modify the next attempt based on the results of the previous.

Also, even if the person would have the intel on something, the factors may not always be as accurate as what the intel was based on.

Well, just something random out of this.

[Shiroi Tora]

Yes...and this is more important than many think.  Structure is important to everything...Science...Math....even Music and the Arts....and especially so with child rearing.  To have a child explore for creativity is fine....to learn by blind trial and error is to lose a chance to teach them a far more efficient way of thinking.  It would be a structured set of teaching the basic concepts of physics, or other concepts of science....for example...by showing that the more massive objects on the bottom of a stack leads to more stability of a tower...and initial width which may be gradually tapered can lead to stability in a tower of similar mass blocks.  They would then realize the concept and attempt to use the learned concept in other endeavors.  That is why a learned and engaged mentor (parent) is so important.  Yes, children can learn on their own...but then it becomes dependent on the richness of his  environment...if there were adequate examples at hand and upon his desire to explore.  With positive reinforcement of his grasp of taught principles, he may learn at an accelerated pace...with enthusiasm and without frustration. 

[Nie]

I do not deny at all that trial and error is not a good way to go, as I said its more like a last resort unless the intention for some unique reason demands you use the said approach. Ex would be, initiating a conversation with a stranger - you know the basics, but every human is different and react differently, you can fail even if you follow the structured procedure to the letter - it circumstancially becomes a trial and error sorta

Structured learning is best in terms of efficiency and efficacy, it can be monitored and controlled. But the thing here is it is not consistent in its outcome, just as what you see in the kids out of school. Some do good and some do poor. Some are smart and yet they perform puny and get outperformed by less skilled students. If one is to merely look at the method of delivery you can fail, you have to take into consideration the means and the destination of the information. Its just like saving a file in a floppy with the intention of moving it to another computer - but then you find out the other computer doesnt have a floppy drive, it only has a cd drive.

Shiro, taking you for example, even if you ahve all the motivation and dedication to teach a human how to bake a cupcake, if this person has no desire to learn how to or has any desire or respect to listen to what you have to say the information youre trnsmitting might just get rejected.

[Shiroi Tora]

Yes...that is true with any method.  That is why positive reinforcement be started from birth.  By giving the child a love of learning from the beginning takes away later problems.   The child not being motivated is a different issue...when the child wishes to learn...and many more will when concepts are given in an efficient manner, teaching them correctly through positive examples peaks their interest and agrees with their reasoning skills.  They will know it to be the right path.

[zenemu]

If you apply a systematic method to it, then yes, I have found trial and error to be the best way to learn at least practical things. A combination of dissassociation - trial and error thought experiements tend to work better for mpore academic or esoteric persuits. I suppose it largely depends upon the individual and how well they naturally follow a logical learning process.

[MM]

Depends on your definition of trial and error.  should I touch the hot stove. Should I try drugs out and then see why I dont take them.  Should I run somebody over then get arrested and sent to jail oh now I know why you dont run people over.  in some way no but when it comes to practical things like gardening and trade related skills except when dangerous the answer is yes