...Way to vulgarize postmodernism for digestibility among technocrat babies.

Wow. This is right up my alley and conforms with my politics and personal philosophy. A theory that is based on "I don't know", a comfort level with uncertainty. "Anything goes at first, but then we import the tools of science to structure that space so you can rule out whole areas." But I think it's almost a litmus test for intelligence to see if people can thread the needle of uncertainty without going towards irrational beliefs without evidence.

Actually, I'm not sure how this would be considered begging the question in any sense. Adding propositions to the set of those which constitute our knowledge of the world, through science, inherently entails the elimination of certain other propositions which would be contradictory to them. There is nothing illogical or contradictory about considering the possibility of any given proposition until it is ruled out, including a kind of meta-proposition like "Science tells us about the world."

I really like these ideas, however, I'm not sure if this breaks from my understanding of agnosticism.

I am agnostic, not only about religion, but about most of everything. The way I define it has little to do with lack of certainty between two opposing view. I think this is, to a certain extent, simplistic. Rather, I define agnosticism as holding no beliefs to be absolute or true. Or, perhaps, better, as holding no beliefs. Beliefs being understood as an absolute certainty about a particular idea or set of ideas.

When certainty is stripped from my ideas then I'm left with a set of idea types. Of the types, some of them regard things that one can be more or less certain about. That are more or less probable. Possible.

So, given my particular brand of agnosticism, I've been a possibilian the whole time. I consider this a type of re-branding. And I'm totally ok with that. Anything that brings more light to I-dont-knowism is fine with me.

he's so cute. :)