You assert that there is no knowledge under the expectation that it is true, then you go on and justify it. So it seems you know that there is no knowledge, a c

You assert that there is no knowledge under the expectation that it is true, then you go on and justify it. So it seems you know that there is no knowledge, a contradiction. Why deny the word has meaning, just because you can't distill it down to a concise explanation? The meaning of a word can be arbitrarily complex. Knowledge can exist, even if you can't define it, because meaning is not determined by definition. Definitions are simply a mechanism for coordinating understanding, not for demonstrating its existence. Besides, any argument against the existence of knowledge could be used against belief. Play "taboo" with the subject and don't confine yourself to using ancient terminology to describe the world and these pointless linguistic problems melt away.