Agnosticism isn't a worldview on the metaphysical actuality of the cosmos itself, but a state of mind of the individual or a limitation of the individual. That isn't tautological to the workings of the cosmos. The "limitations of the individual", either personally or cosmically posed, are not the "mechanism of the universe"; thus agnosticism is a worldview about the opinions of the individual, and not about the cosmic actuality. The possibly hidden nature of the cosmos, isn't its only attribute, nor its deepest mechanism. Agnosticism is not the purest metaphysics on the cosmos, but it is pure ontic metaphysics on the individual (the thinker).

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Agnosticism/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Article doesn't meet the GA criteria. Cleanup tag for several months for excessive quotation, which is an issue with focus criterion. At 16 kb of readable prose, I also suspect that the article is not covering all important aspects, although I don't know enough about the topic to say for sure. Furthermore, a quick check of sourcing reveals serious issues. None of the sources cited for the "Hindu philosophy" section support the connection with agnosticism, which seems to be WP:OR, as far as I can tell. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a long time editor of the Agnosticism page, I would agree that it needs improvement. For a couple years, the page was unstable as agnostics and atheists tend to battle over the meaning of agnosticism. This gutted the page. The edit warring ended a couple years ago and the page has since remained stable, but it is still gutted. I would support improvements, however, my concern is this could lead to a new edit war between agnostics and atheists. I would request more involvement from neutral parties.IIXVXII (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delisted since there are outstanding cleanup tags, I don't see how we can keep the article as GA. (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

/* Κριτική */ o αγνωστικός θεωρεί ότι υπάρχει η πιθανότητα/το ενδεχόμενο ο κόσμος (και οι υποθετικοί κόσμοι) να μην εδράζονται σε φυσικούς νόμους, αλλά σε νόμους εγγενώς απροσέγγιστους που είτε άμεσα είτε έμμεσα, υπερετούν την προσωποκρατική (στις μέρες μας ανθρώπινη) ανάγκη για περισσότερη τάξη (ως απώτερη τάξη μπορεί να μην είναι άμεσα προσωποκρατική), με κριτήριο αλήθειας την ΑΡΕΣΚΕΙΑ. Ειδάλλως ΔΕΝ θα ήταν αγνωστικοί, μα φυσιοκράτες (βλ. naturalism in metaphysics).

γιατί είναι προσωποκρατική η μεταφυσική αγνωσία

Θεωρείς ότι ο φυσικός κόσμος είναι φυσικός κόσμος ή ότι είναι σκλάβος της αρέσκειας των ανθρώπινων αξιών όπως λένε οι θρήσκοι και οι αγνωστικοί/αγνωστικιστές. Και οι αγνωστικοί αφήνουν ένα ίχνος κοσμικής ασάφειας, η οποία σαφέστατα βοηθά τους απώτερους σκοπούς των προσώπων, τα οποία θέλουν να δώσουν νόημα στο σύμπαν και όχι να το κατανοήσουν ως έχει. Είναι η ασάφεια κάτι που σαφέστατα βοηθά έστω απώτερα τα πρόσωπα; Αυτό ισχυρίζονται οι έμμεσοι μεταφυσικοί προσωποκράτες (πχ στον σπάνιο αθεϊστικό βουδισμό, οι αξίες δεν ορίζονται από θεό-πρόσωπο, μα τα πάντα έχουν ένα ΑΡΕΣΤΟ ΓΙΑ ΤΑ ΠΡΟΣΩΠΑ απώτερο νόημα και ΑΠΟΔΕΚΤΗ ΤΑΞΗ).

Ακόμα και στον αθεϊστική αγνωσία, ο αγνωστικός άθεος:

1. απορρίπτει ή θεωρεί ατελή την ανάλυση της Mary Anne Warren (the criteria for personhood) στη οποία η προσωποσύνη δεν προκύπτει α. κοσμογόνος, ούτε β. καθοριστής των φυσικών νόμων (οι θεμελιωδέστεροι [αιτιωδώς πληρέστεροι] νόμοι μελετώνται από την φυσική)
2. θεωρεί την ασάφεια, δυνητικά σαφώς μη φυσική και προσωποκρατικού σκοπού (αξίες των προσώπων, έστω απώτερες, πχ στον σπάνιο αθεϊστικό βουδισμό, το σύμπαν δεν είναι άμεσα προσωποκρατικό, όμως είναι έμμεσα, με μία τάξη που ΔΕΝ περιγράφεται σαφώς [αφήνει κενά ορισμού] και είναι αρεστή περισσότερο από την φυσική/τον φυσικό κόσμο ως έχει χωρίς έμμεση προσωποκρατική ωραιοποίηση)
3. δεν κατανοεί: α. την εσωτερική του προσωποκρατική προκατάληψη, β. πως σύμφωνα με την νευροεπιστήμη (βάσει δεδομένων) λειτουργεί ο εγκέφαλος ώστε να επιφέρει σκέψη και συνειδητότητα, γ. την διαφορά της φυσιοκρατικής περιγραφής του κόσμου (βλ. naturalism) με έναν κόσμο (ή κόσμους φυσικούς και υποθετικούς) προσωποκρατικό ή έμμεσα προσωποκρατικό (πχ βουδιστική τακτοποίηση του Παντός, το οποίο παν, είναι μη αποφασίσιμο επιστημονικά [το παν δεν είναι μόνο τα σύμπαντα, επίσης θα εμπεριείχε σύνολα αμοιβαίως αποκλειόμενα, οπότε δεν έχει μονήρη υποστατότητα το Παν. Αποτελεί καθαρά φιλοσοφικό όρο μα ΟΧΙ πραγματικό/υποστατό και όχι μονήρη. Αυτό που εσφαλμένα λέγεται ως Παν, είναι το σύνολο των υποστατών και μη υποστατών μα περιγράψιμων καταστάσεων, συστημάτων κτλ. Δεν έχει αυτούσια/αβλαβή υπόσταση η σημασία του. Το Παν είναι όρος. Κατά τον ορθολογικό ορισμό του ΠΑΘΑΙΝΕΙ ΒΛΑΒΗ διότι αποκαλύπτονται πχ τα αμοιβαίως αποκλειόμενα μη συστατικά του (μη γιατί αποτυγχάνουν να υπαχθούν). Άρα σύμφωνα με τον ορισμό του ελληνικού επιθέτου αυτούσιος, το Παν ΔΕΝ είναι αυτούσιο).

Why metaphysical personocracy (metaphysical personocracy: to deem [explicitly] personhood [god is the cosmogonic person], or [implicitly] the projected purpose people ascribe and project unto the universe, its content and to all hypotherical cosmoi) is one out of an infinite list of alternative biases; but humans value personocracy more because they themselves are persons.

We could have the theory of metaphysical bus-ocracy (to deem everything mechanically related to buses, itineraries, fuel consumption, mechanical malfunctions, tickets, etc); and all that deemed cosmically fundamental and causal.

We could have the theory of metaphysical bookcase-ocracy (to deem everything literarily related to authors, languages, book genres, types of wood, types of paper, types of ink, etc); and all that deemed cosmically fundamental and causal.

If these biases seem silly, mind that all biases are equally silly; but humans relate more to biases that promote their own personhood; explicitly or implicitly. The personocratic bias is also a problem of agnosticism (not only of religion and supernaturalism); because all forms of agnosticism value metaphysical personocracy as a superior bias, but without justification.

Why out of the infinite possible biases humans selected the theories of metaphysical personocracy? Because they are persons themselves.

Sean M. Carroll (cosmologist) and Max Tegmark (mathematical physicist) apply mathematics to describe the cosmos (and the hypothetical cosmoi). They aren't exactly mathogonists, because mathematics is a tool of logic. Not all mathematics is materialisable/substantial (see: decision theory). These theorists are struogonists (struō is the Latin etymon of structure; see: mathematical structure) because the materialisable cosmoi must satisfy various requirements; thus their set of formulas is smaller than the whole of mathematics.

Even scientists have biases, and they make mistakes; but the mathematical universe hypothesis doesn't set beforehand a specific predetermined goal deemed as the cause of everything. The scientific theories are tested and corrected through time (religion deems change heretical); and even their general idea might change, because no predetermined goal is set, other than understanding a bit more the nature of the universe and of the other possible worlds.

    Or...agnosticism is simply the position of suspending judgment. Afterall, there is nothing in the philosophy of logic that says one has a time limit when    
    assigning truth values to propositions.IIXVXII (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agnosticism overexamines the cosmic role of personhood, but it doesn't accept computability theory. Agnosticism doesn't examine cosmogony from a bicycle, or a library, or a train. Agnosticism doesn't examine religions that were never created because they weren't beneficial or ethical. Classic agnostics don't understand that if we increase the numbers of dimensions in some theory and if as humans don't know every aspect of reality, these facts cannot violate causality in physics.

Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye, promote the violation of linguistics. They consider "incomplete natural theory" tautological to "agnosticism". They claim that etymology is tautological to definition in all words. They merge these terms and don't want humanity to have many terms to express different meanings on different pages in encyclopedias. These people are worse than those who burn books, because the people who burn books accept that they existed. Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye don't allow the expression of different meanings. They want to oppress the human ability to describe different conditions. Their misdefinition of agnosticism isn't the official one.

Please create the page: incomplete natural theory (without causal violations; just incomplete).

Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye claim that we humans should merge different ideas under the same term, in order dialogue becomes impossible. They promote linguistic distortions and they don't want humans to invent new terms to describe different meanings.

Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye are agnostotheorists, not typical agnostics open to the violation of causality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:1E4C:EDCA:19F7:A170:E9B9 (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The view that:

• Rejection of explicit metaphysical personocracy (the direct omnidominance [cosmic and exocosmic dominance] of personhood is impossible).
  • Rejection of the major religions (except for Taoism and impersonal field religions).
• Acceptance of (or openness towards) indirect metaphysical anthropocracy (implicit omnidominance of human ethics, values and esthetics).
• Rejection or animosity towards metaphysical naturalism. Openness to the violation of causality in the foundation of physics. Acceptance of unprocedurally occurring uncausal (or of unadmitted anthropically biased psychological and interpretational causality/exophysical causal connections which are nonrigorous emotional interpretations of the believer) phenomena.

Agnostic atheists overestimate the possible role of personhood in cosmogony and reject the definition of personhood by Mary Anne Warren (she didn't involve it in cosmogony nor in cosmic dominance after cosmogony/cosmodominance/omnidominance).

Why metaphysical personocracy (metaphysical personocracy: to deem [explicitly] personhood [god is the cosmogonic person], or [implicitly] the projected purpose people ascribe and project unto the universe, its content and to all hypotherical cosmoi) is one out of an infinite list of alternative biases; but humans value personocracy more because they themselves are persons.

We could have the theory of metaphysical bus-ocracy (to deem everything mechanically related to buses, itineraries, fuel consumption, mechanical malfunctions, tickets, etc); and all that deemed cosmically fundamental and causal.

We could have the theory of metaphysical bookcase-ocracy (to deem everything literarily related to authors, languages, book genres, types of wood, types of paper, types of ink, etc); and all that deemed cosmically fundamental and causal.

If these biases seem silly, mind that all biases are equally silly; but humans relate more to biases that promote their own personhood; explicitly or implicitly. The personocratic bias is also a problem of agnosticism (not only of religion and supernaturalism); because all forms of agnosticism value metaphysical personocracy as a superior bias, but without justification.

Why out of the infinite possible biases humans selected the theories of metaphysical personocracy? Because they are persons themselves.

Sean M. Carroll (cosmologist) and Max Tegmark (mathematical physicist) apply mathematics to describe the cosmos (and the hypothetical cosmoi). They aren't exactly mathogonists, because mathematics is a tool of logic. Not all mathematics is materialisable/substantial (see: decision theory). These theorists are struogonists (struō is the Latin etymon of structure; see: mathematical structure) because the materialisable cosmoi must satisfy various requirements; thus their set of formulas is smaller than the whole of mathematics.

Even scientists have biases, and they make mistakes; but the mathematical universe hypothesis doesn't set beforehand a specific predetermined goal deemed as the cause of everything. The scientific theories are tested and corrected through time (religion deems change heretical); and even their general idea might change, because no predetermined goal is set, other than understanding a bit more the nature of the universe and of the other possible worlds.

Agnosticism also considers the possibility of implicit metaphysical personocracy/impersonal divine field (which opposes metaphysical naturalism; here the difference between atheism and metaphysical naturalism is obvious (why don't we have the page: Similarities and differences between metaphysical naturalism and atheism or succinctly comparison between metaphysical naturalism and atheism [metaphysical naturalism comes first, because it's more rigorous philosophically, atheism is more known but less specific; the greatest dictionaries focus only on the inexistence of god in the atheist doctrine, also milder variants, and the unprovability declaration as variant subdoctrines]).