Isn't his position that mathematical (2+2=4) and logical (!T=F) knowledge is a different kind of knowledge than empirical (temp=20C) or scientific (F=ma)?
I took this to be similar to what Einstein [1] said:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Thanks for the Einstein reference. I wasn't familiar with it. However, my comment expressed little more than well established principles in epistemology and the philosophy of science. Einstein in his essay discusses the same general issue. My favorite demonstration of the difficulty of defining (non-mathematical) knowledge is the Gettier problem. The coolest thing about it is that if we try to come up with a definition of knowledge that is always agreed upon by everybody -- one that fully reconciles what we can intuitively and "logically" consider to be knowledge with all forms of the Gettier problem[1] -- we find ourselves with such a narrow definition that hardly covers anything we consider to be "known". This means that in science, as with everything else, we must adopt more lenient -- or pragmatic -- definitions of knowledge, but those definitions are not rigorous in any mathematical sense, and are always lacking.
I took this to be similar to what Einstein [1] said: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
[1] http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Einstein_g...