Those are your definitions, not something anyone else would understand as such.
Experience allows me to set up lighting without using modeling lights. A test exposure or two lets me refine it. It's not rocket science. Even for complex lighting, once one has experimented a bit it does not take much to replicate it. But I try to keep things simple for the most part, when possible using a single light and a reflector card.
The modeling light on a strobe placed outside a window with a bit of diffusion won't do much good.
Portraiture lighting books talk about precise placement of shadows in order to create the 'Rembrandt lighting'...which is part of my distinction of 'lighting' from 'illumination'. Turnng on a room light increases 'illumination' without 'lighting a subject'. Not my 'definition' simply differences used in the English language for 'illuminate', vs. a architectural photographer lighting a room or portraitiest placing a source for a portraiture subject, both of which are not merely 'illumination'.
Yes, experience matters a lot, but
beginners to 'lighting' do not have any/much experience to draw upon, and learning with a modelling light (or even a simple desk lamp with conventional bulb) helps to accelerate the learning process because they can instantly SEE what moving the light does to flatter (or make hideous) the subject, before getting fancy with light modifiers on sources. Get a beginner to reproduce Rembrandt light is easier with modelling lights (or any constant source)...it is painful to watch the learning with only portable flash.