I don't think you mean the only way people learn is by personal experience, but that's how it sounds.
There are many ways to collect information. I don't know if I'd call that learning. I think that information should come from trusted sources, whether that is personal experience, or a widely accepted authority- such as yourself, John, or their father/grandfather, etc.
Some who claim authority don't deserve it. Many sources of authority are specious. Personal experience directs me who to trust. Beyond all that semi-ether, marketing is not an authority. There is no right of claim on valid information from marketing; in fact, the contrary.
The guy who builds houses should be able to tell you how to build houses. The guy who shoots a lot and kills a lot of animals should have something valuable to say regarding some effective ways to go about that. The guy who markets bullets may or may not know anything. It isn't his job to know. It is his job to promote bullet sales. He isn't bound by any claim to be openly factual or honest. That isn't the best way to sell things. That is what I am claiming.
Governments are filled with 'authorities'. They have to be. They have to market themselves as such. If it were widely understood that they are not needed, and aren't worth what they cost, and that there are better, faster, and cheaper ways to do those things that governments claim authority over, then they wouldn't exist must longer. Once again, honesty is rarely the best way to garner opinion.
