For someone that attempts to lean so heavily on (mangled) epistemology, you'd think he'd also take the time to familiarize with concepts such as cognitive duality/plurality and context sensitivity of knowledge objects in the perceiving individual. But, no.
One might also suppose that he, in attempting a platform of epistemelogical erudition, would take the time to not merely familiarize but comprehensively internalize the epistemological concepts beyond merely the scope of those he attempts to selectively apply. But again, no.
Moreover, one might suppose that he, seeming to be of an interest in formal knowledge, might research materials beyond the intrinsic scope of his perceived need (which seems not to be right so much as to try to wave a bigger verbal stick than the other guy). He might, in so doing, come across cognitive development studies (I'd personally recommend looking into the research of Piaget and Perry; see also, principles of metacognition) as supplements to diversify and enrich his own capacity to express a sound, justified and reliable position in that formal context, but...no.
It's a bit disheartening on the thin edge. Vexing in a purely typical manner. Would be good to have a properly appointed epistemologist around, irrespective of their personal leanings, as that kind of resource would be a wonderful (and very educational) person to both engage and potentially learn from.
Instead, we get ego posturing under hastily hacked-together mockery of epistemology as delivered by someone with no demonstrated or stated interest in discussing anything with anybody.
Also, Fry is awesome.
Thank you, that is all.