> However he unfortunately he later states "I would argue that there is only one kind of knowledge, at least about the real world, and that is empirical knowled

> However he unfortunately he later states "I would argue that there is only one kind of knowledge, at least about the real world, and that is empirical knowledge." You ignored the important qualifier which is "about the real world" and by real I assert he means physical world. Your examples do not in fact contradict his statement because they are not about knowledge about the real (physical) world. I also don't understand your segway to Mcnamara. The above statement certainly does not state that data by itself is knowledge, and certainly any (naturally limited) set of data is not necessarily sufficient to predict the future. However this fact does not contradict the statement that we can only confirm how the world works (i.e. acquire knowledge about the physical world) through empirical means.