The "and" in the first sentence is dubious: the first part is a more-or-less established fact, while the second is probably Arnon Avron's horror dream.

Doron Zeilberger entertain us with a somewhat similar fantasies (http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimhtml/priced.html):

I can envision an abstract of a paper, c. 2100, that reads: "We show, in a certain precise sense, that the Goldbach conjecture is true with probability larger than 0.99999, and that its complete truth could be determined with a budget of 10B$". It would be then OK to rely on such a priced theorem, provided that the price is stated explicitly. Whenever statement A, whose price is p, and statement B, whose price is q, are used to deduce statement C, the latter becomes a priced theorem priced at p+q. If a whole chain of boring identities would turn out to imply an interesting one, we might be tempted to redeem all these intermediate identities, but we would not be able to buy out the whole store, and most identities would have to stay unclaimed.

I guess it is just a matter of time for the so called 'post-normal science' ideology to penetrate defences of the remaining 'normal sciences'.