The TST topic-only definition:

An agnostic position on an irrational topic does not pretend certainty. 

Chapter 11 of 30 Philosophers defines the agnostic worldview.

“Agnostics assert that it is impossible to either prove or disprove certain claims, such as the existence of unicorns, ghosts, or Valhalla.”

In common terms, agnosticism is a restraint: a way of saying, “I do not know enough to call this true or false.”

In TST, agnosticism is treated as a topic stance, not a worldview. A person can be agnostic about one claim, a skeptic on another, and a believer on yet another. That’s agnosticism in practice.

Pragmatism, by contrast, describes the broader worldview lens. The pragmatic types are the lenses a person can use to interpret the world. Put simply:

Pragmatism calibrates your worldview lens, while agnosticism focuses your lens away from a specific topic.

Agnosticism has two broad types: explorative and apathetic. An explorative agnostic actively examines a topic while withholding certainty. An apathetic agnostic withholds certainty by simply not engaging in the topic. This matters because not all uncertainty is the same. Some uncertainty is curious and active. Some is indifferent and inactive. For example, a person might be agnostic about Valhalla and demons. They might be skeptical of astrology’s truth claims, but may still enjoy it as culture or personality language.

For me, I try to live as an empirical pragmatist. On specific topics, I calibrate. For example, on string theory, I remain exploratively agnostic and find the topic fascinating. On ghosts, I’m an apathetic agnostic with a skeptical lean. When I encounter a new mystery, I use OVM to examine the believer, empiricist, and skeptic views on the topic. I then return to my empirical-pragmatic worldview for calibration. Calibration helps me decide how much confidence a topic deserves.