To be fair, working only from book knowledge and no experience is precisely what makes someone an amateur.
Amateurs aren't paid, professionals are.
Novices are inexperienced, journeyman and masters are more skilled and experienced.
A novice can have a ton of knowledge (from books), but be too inexperienced to apply it.
A novice can be a professional, this is what internships and entry-level jobs are supposed to be for. Paired with mentorship and structured work assignments (structured in the sense of increasing complexity, scope, and responsibility) they're brought up to journeyman and, later, master level.
They can also be amateurs. Given forums, books, manuals, mentors (real-life or online), they can be brought up to journeyman and master level as well.
You're noticing a common root, but not the meaning of the word in the modern day.
Decimate means to destroy 1 in 10 of something (like an opposing army). But today we use the word to mean destruction of a large percentage.
I suppose an argument can be made that modern use of amateur is more akin to what used to be novice. However, I'd have a hard time accepting that except when it's used as a slur. We talk about amateurs in many fields, but don't intend to dismiss them as unskilled or inexperienced, we're classifying them as non-professionals. In a forum like this, filled with amateur programmers, it seems, to me, that it's wrong to misuse the term in this manner when a large portion of the readers here are amateur programmers but of moderate to high skill level.
But our profession's training material, at least in my experience reading, drills it in your head to use all these abstracting devices.
It's certainly true that you can get some "book knowledge" that tells you that you can over abstract. I mean, this blog post is one example. But I only hear this sort of stuff from things like blog post from experienced devs, it seems to me. (Or maybe I just read the wrong kind of books?)