Funny, because Boop said:
One might say that science, as it is currently understood and practiced, is excessively devoted to abstractions, in a sort of process of "reification" in reverse.
You want to speak only in abstractions and she thinks we science uses them “excessively.” (perhaps) Interesting.
And I prefer the Oxford Dictionary for definitions.
I find them inadequate, stilting and rather narrow. Not sufficient for a philosophical , metaphysical discussion.
A creature bound by the space-time continuum has no means by which to determine that anything exists outside of that space-time continuum except upon a hypothetical basis.
That statement equates the universal set of knowables to the subset of knowables by empiricism. That is illogical.
Your definitions are as narrow as Oxford's, maybe that is why you prefer it. Please name for me any “knowable” that exists outside the space-time continuum.
But I wanted to offer a short list of things off the top of my head which would be in the universal set of knowables but not in the subset of knowables by empiricism: standards/normatives, hopes/plans, stories/music/art, qualia (love, hate, pain, pleasure, etc.) and most importantly, Spiritual knowledge.
There are of course things which are both unknown and unknowable. betty boop mentioned noumenons - very important - what a thing is in itself.
To that I would add particles and fields which have no direct or indirect measurable effect and the full number and types of dimensions.
I'll try to catch up tomorrow.