This challenge to overconfident amateurs is relevant and well argued. In short, get out the pencil and paper, it's time for a renaissance of sketching. In Ch 3 he critiques [amateur design technique] which he views as too cerebral. In Ch 4 he evangelizes a more pragmatic, physical approach which he calls cognitive interaction. The paper is involved - he backs up his thesis by citing its philosophical, evolutionary basis among other tediousness - so you might want to skim Ch 0 and skip to Ch 3.

From Ch 5:

Why are experiments (and simulations) in the physical world superior to models and simulations in the head? The reason is that you want to find out both what you can figure out and what you can't figure out, i.e. what you cannot simulate mentally. That is, you want to know also about the effects of your actions that you cannot predict or forsee.

[Then he talks about iterating over "fine-grained pieces of activity, a continuous attention to feedback that replaces complex pre-planned actions, and simpler and smaller actions..."]

Why is this better? Remember dead reckoning: it starts from a known position, but the shortcomings of prediction yield an accumulating error that makes the computed position deviate more and more from the actual position. Position fixing instead reestablishes accuracy each time a fix is made. So the more often you make fixes, the more often you can make the proper adjustments to your course, and the less will your measured position drift away from the actual one.