[andrepd]

> Also, people used to be considered geniuses for knowing a lot of things.

This is still true, and in the eagerness to dismiss "memorization" as a thing of the past you overlook the obvious. For example, anything you care to know about, say, C++ programming or quantum field theory is available to you on the internet. But does that mean you can write a C++ program as if you had already learned it? What if you want to write a C++ program and you have to look up everything? You will do a very poor job if at all, and you will take a lot of time.

So yeah, until looking up stuff in the internet is as quick as effective as looking stuff up in your brain (the quick may happen but the effective I don't think so), then it still is a very worthy skill.

[jayd16]

But you've just proven cocktailpeanuts point that its about the ability to use the knowledge, not simply recall it.

[adharmad]

The ability to use knowledge does not come out of thin air. It is unlikely to find someone who knows how to program C++ extremely well, or solve problems in Quantum Field theory, but does not remember most of the language constructs or mathematical equations.

Continuous practice involves putting in the hours at practicing an art or a science, which by itself builds muscle memory about the language syntax/equations etc. It is unlikely that one can remember one but not the other.

[jacobolus]

“The best geologist is he who has seen the most rocks.” – H. H. Read

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Well, in that case:

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting" -Ernest Rutherford.

[andrepd]

You can't use the knowledge well if you have to look everything up every time, that's my point.