>Yes, but blue doesn't have a "Definitions of Blue" Wikipedia page.
Oh, I understand, so the criteria is to have a Wikipedia page like that?
You know what's interesting, I couldn't find neither of these:
* تعريفات المعرفة
* 知識嘅定義
* Définitions de la connaissance
* Definiciones de conocimiento
Should we add "and it has to be written in English" as a requirement?
I know this is arguing ad absurdum, but the point is, again, that if you choose to be that strict, you wouldn't even be able to communicate with other people, because your desired perfect 1:1 map of concepts among them doesn't even exist.
No, I mean to illustrate that "blue" and "knowledge" have a vastly different degree in variation in definition.
Like you say, all words of course have different definitions between individuals, but you and I are obviously able to communicate without specifying every definition. There exists a spectrum between well-agreed-upon definitions (like "and") and fuzzier ones. The definition of "knowledge" is divisive enough that many people disagree vehemently on definitions, which is illustrated by the fact that there is a whole Wikipedia article on it.
If there is a "midwit trap" related to this, there is certainly a Sorites paradox trap as well - that because all words have varying definitions, that it is no use to point out that some words' definitions are more variable than others.
Oh, I understand, so the criteria is to have a Wikipedia page like that?
You know what's interesting, I couldn't find neither of these:
* تعريفات المعرفة
* 知識嘅定義
* Définitions de la connaissance
* Definiciones de conocimiento
Should we add "and it has to be written in English" as a requirement?
I know this is arguing ad absurdum, but the point is, again, that if you choose to be that strict, you wouldn't even be able to communicate with other people, because your desired perfect 1:1 map of concepts among them doesn't even exist.