No, you misunderstand: I am claiming that the only valid way to define continents is using the best available scientific understanding at the time. The idea of "continents" as defined by laypeople is bullshit because it does not conform with consistently-defined parameters.

There is a geological definition of a continent, which is, effectively, "a portion of a tectonic plate which is thicker and less-mafic than oceanic crust, formed by volcanism and accretion." This definition has utility.

To pretend that definitions can't change is ridiculously prescriptivist. It's just a failure of the educational systems available that few learn a better definition than "whatever old dead white guys said was a continent". Are you suggesting that we should have come up with a new name besides "element" when early chemists started realising that "fire", "air", "earth", "water", "wood" and "metal" were not, in fact, the most basic building blocks of reality? Old outdated terms can and should be applied to new classifications which better comport with our best understanding of reality.

When plate tectonics was developed, the geological community quickly accepted, for instance, that Europe was no longer its own continent, but also that New Zealand was. I am suggesting that anyone claiming there are six or seven continents is precisely like someone claiming there are nine planets, or four elements. It's not only not based off of the best available scientific classifications, it's also so reductivist as to be literally useless. Anyone who doesn't know that fire is not an element needs to retake secondary chemistry, because their understanding of the world is flawed at a basic level. Anyone who thinks there are five, six or seven continents needs to be introduced to better, more up-to-date definitions.