But what changes is not the word or its meaning, but its application.
A foot, I am sure, used to be a very approximate measure. Now it’s perfectly standardized. But this reflects nothing on the word or its meaning, the reason why it is used for that unit. That one meaning for that one word is the reason the word was good for both applications each in their time. Custom eventually forbade the approx. foot, but that changed nothing about the word or its meaning.
I’m not saying words don’t have genealogies or evolutions in time. I am saying, first, that genealogy is set in stone and, second, the speed is so slow as to be static in practice. Like a glacier is actually flowing, but in practice is a static block of ice.
In the case of this discussion, what I am debating is not the meaning of the words good and bad. I am debating the accuracy of what it is said they point to. The definition is the same, but the application is, as I see it, faulty.