There is that frame, yes, that looks down on "experts" (snort!) learning things from "books" (double snort).
The fact that this frame exists does not mean you (we the people, in fact) should embrace it, quite the contrary. We should not let the framers hijack these terms, and dismiss any form of argument that way.
That being said, there is such a thing as looseness of speech in everyday use. A photocopy is a xerox is a photocopy. That by itself is not inexact, it's not taking leeway with/bending reality to a frame; it's just colloquism. Pretending not to understand colloquisms under the guise of rigeur, I think, is not a a productive way to conduct a discussion - neither a scientific one nor in the broader sense.
I used to be a mathematical logician once, and boy do I know what it means to be precise and rigorous in the use of terms. Even so, not every domain is like that; vague handwaving abounds and is useful in the "softer sciences" (physics and so on...
) — and IRL.
Right here, we're not applying rigour in defining experimental conditions exactly for purposes of repeatability, to mention just one form. We're not constructing mathematical proofs rigorously. The discussion of table tennis equipment properties lies at an entirely different plane. Mostly. And it's performed not in the context of seeking veracity, but in sharing highly subjective (and emotional) impressions. That is a different function, with different requirements.