Scientific knowledge doesn't have to be infalliable before it can qualify to the status of Knowledge? Correct?

There isn't really any scientific knowledge because knowledge is belief which it's logically impossible to doubt.  It has that in common with everyday experience.  There are, however, established scientific theories which are well-corroborated after extensive testing.

It would be ok if 0% was just rounding to the nearest whole percent.

Correct. . There five steps to knowledge pyramid. Data is meaningless until it is analyzed and interpreted and be omes information. Information doesn't become knowledge until information is applied ain experiments and conclusions are drawn. This is called hypotheses testing. Often the null hypothesis is not explicitly stated. The hypothesis or null hypothesis can be rejected or accepted. Then it might be cone knowledge the step above that is wisdom. Wisdom comes from life experience. 

Leave religion and faith out of this. Yahweh and God or Woden or Gaia or Zeus are not required for the Universe to work. The aws of physics, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics are God's laws, but you don't have to agree with me. I don't care if you do not agree?with me or what your opinions are.   

Correct. 

But, you need to browse up on Gödel's incompleteness theorem - which isn’t for the faint of heart ....

Basically, it says that any system of mathematics (e.g. that which applies to physical theory) will have some part that cannot be proven or disproven and/or some aspects of the system cannot be proven to be without contradiction (internal self consistency).

So, the implication is that one cannot have complete, infallible knowledge, so no physical ‘law’ can be considered infallible although we can certainly falsify those that are inconsistent with observation.

In science, no theory can ever be proven. We never know if a new discovery will contradict it. We just use the best theory that we currently have. 

Really you should ask this question in the philosophy section.

We are but humble astronomers here.

Correct.  But what is your point?