How should "knowledgeability" be defined?
Is it merely w.r.t. to best scientific knowledge? What about things that science cannot measure?
Or are there other "reasonable" forms of knowledge? Why are they "reasonable"?
Well, mavavilj, definitions are easy - dictionaries are teeming with them. None of them is right or wrong, they're only more or less agreeable to whomever interprets them!
However, 'knowledge' isn't a scientific term, it's a philosophical issue. Science is more concerned with evidence, theory and statistical analysis.
Are you keeping in mind the contemporary (postmodern) approach to the limits of human comprehension? Karl Popper acknowledged (in his 1972 book Objective Knowledge: an Evolutionary Approach, p. 75) that the inductive inferences (objective knowledge) which science generates should not be regarded as "true" claims, writing, "...there simply are no sufficient reasons for holding those hypotheses to be true, let alone certainly true.”
Maybe this will clarify what you're asking(?): Popper also proposed that two different kinds of knowledge exist: conscious experiential (subjective) understandings (one's beliefs, opinions and theories) and abstract linguistic sets of ideas ( "objective") knowledge). Neither type is noted for consistency, although scientists and philosophers should certainly focus on coherency!