Since definitions aren't concrete, and language is explicitly a popularity contest, you are not learning "what makes a tree a tree", but rather "what people cal

Since definitions aren't concrete, and language is explicitly a popularity contest, you are not learning "what makes a tree a tree", but rather "what people call a tree" You are re-deriving an existing definition, not an actual physical reality. This is a great example actually, because there is no genetic or biologic definition of a tree, and what we call a tree is matched better by some idealized representation of info like "has a trunk maybe". Also that the definition you develop is rarely rigorously tested in practice, so you only need about 80%, and basic pattern matching can get you that really easily.