They seem like fairly reasonable questions to me Cofty, and strangely, not much related to semantics in this particular instance.
1. If you are going to claim science can give definitive answers on subjects how do you get round the problem that inductive reasoning can't produce definite knowledge?
2. Even if we agree that the worm's view is "ignorant", how we rule out the possibility that our view of the world may appear similarly ignorant to a super-intelligent being that is as much more intelligent than us as we are compared with a worm?
Where does semantics come into these issues?