First of all, thank you for such an interesting and provocative article. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the relationship between knowledge and truth. I hope you might find some of my thoughts on the subject nearly as interesting.

My favorite definition of knowledge is that it is sufficiently verified information, where "sufficient" depends on the use to which the information is being put — what depends on its being 'true'. Almost nothing depends on who might have been the first to make this or that pithy statement. People's lives can depend on the validity — truth — of scientific/technical knowledge.

I agree that consensus is one form that knowledge can take. It is similar to pragmatism. Its acceptance by large numbers of people within the 'relevant' population is its verification. As I see it, there are two other forms that knowledge it can take.

One of those is extra-rational knowledge (e.g. beliefs). So when I say, "I believe in God" (and I do), I'm saying I have (extra-rational) knowledge of the existence of God. Such knowledge cannot be verified in any rationalistic way.

The other form that knowledge can take is observational knowledge--knowledge verified by (sufficient) observation within material existence. It is the only form of knowledge that can be inter-subjectively verified among human beings to the extent that to reject it (to include merely ignoring it) is to be irrational (not just non-rational). Interestingly, justice therefore requires observational knowledge — an ethic following from observation within material existence: "Real Justice" (a "5 min read" here in Medium).