Response to Martin

I had never quite thought of knowledge the way that Martin presents it. He makes a point that the word seems to imply fact, fixed information only to be added to. But what I realize in his writing (and when applying what he says to previous time periods) is that knowledge really is only an agreed upon compilation of what specific people believe to be true. Is earth ever flat? Do we revolve around the sun? Is North America India? The answer to all of these is no, but once upon a time, I can guarantee that the answer to all of these was yes. As time goes on, what people “know” changes, and it is defined by structured communities of people who say they know what they’re talking about, and have several previous works to back up what they talk about, but aren’t likely acknowledge to anyone new to the circle even if what they have to say is totally valid.