I think a perfect example of the associated weakness of the 'Lukean theory of learning' is found in a recent debate we had regarding the effect of light on koi. Luke, no doubt observing bass while fishing, suggested there was no link. I took the position that light was indeed an important stimulus for four season koi and in fact gave him the science behind the production of melatonin in fish and it's link to light. Luke had not heard this before but had obvously read something on melatonin in humans and sleep patterns so he responded that it was a 'people thing' and had nothing whatsoever to do with koi in winter. Melatonin, of course is a hormone found in all living things but Luke was unaware of that fact and likely wouldn't trust a book that printed that. Internet yes, Book, no.
I gently introduced text after text references from Graduate level text books on fish physiology- still nothing from the wall known as Luke.
Later, one of you found a news report pointing to the role light plays in triggering behavior in carp. And now it had the ring of truth! Yet who would believe a news story over a text book written on the subject by a group of fish physiologists? Know thy source!!
Quality of information, vetted information, can't be challenged unless you have a documented rebuttal. Personal observation that blends with the written science is well---- just dang satisfying! Not 'truer' mind you, just sits better in the brain. - JR