Paradigm as it occurred in HPS referred to the ensemble of theories, practices and intruments used to solve a problem, which was used for further research and other problems.

The two definitions aren't incompatible. Kuhn was criticised for using several different meanings for the word

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 10:02pm:


Well Axle .. you've gone all silent on me now.

Take another look at what you stated:

As I said earlier, an Agnostic doesn't believe we can know whether there is a god or not

Now contrast the above with this ( thanks to the above links ):

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have knowledge of such.

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they claim not to know or be able to know whether any deity exists

You see?? It's all over the place .. isn't it??

I wouldn't be so quick on the draw, Lisa. When we say someone chops and changes, it's someone that keeps on changing their views. All you've done in the above is shown that there are different flavours of agnosticism or that the term can be applied in different camps.

I could also point to different religions and denominations and sects within each and then again, by your own source, there's agnostic theism. Does that mean that you chop and change because there are different flavours of theism? By your own petard you could say that theism is all over the place.

I've stated my brand when it comes to God and that does not mean that I chop and change.

All you've done in the above is shown that there are different flavours of agnosticism or that the term can be applied in different camps.

- Axle

That's right .. as I said .. it's all over the place .. and these camps are worlds apart.

Lisa you've lost me and I think you've lost yourself in the process. With normal usage when 3 different people come along  and say respectively, they're a theist, agnostic and atheist you generally understand that the theist believes in some diety or dieties, the agnostic says he can't know , and the athiest says that there's no god(s).

Now, to say that someone can apply a term to different shades within a camp doesn't change the above , rather it just obfuscates things. And you're really going nowhere.

I stated that as an agnostic in respect of theism that my position is that you cannot know whether there is or isn't a diety or dieties. Show me where that's not agnostic? And if you can, you've made a point, if you can't then you haven't.

Now what brand of theism are you? If I can point to a dozen different theistic positions does that make you incorrect?

The term in itself is coherent. Stripped down to it's basic , you'd say that a person who is agnostic on an whether something is or isn't the case means that they believe that they can't know.  So, I've said that's where I am in relation to dieties.

Now, to say that someone can be agnostic about some aspect of theism or atheism does not mean that the term agnostic is incoherent or, as you put it, all over the place. And it's perfectly valid for someone to be agnostic about theism as a whole.

Read what I said above your last post. Tell me what's inconsistent about being agnostic about theism as a whole? That you have a theist that's agnostic about some aspect of theism or an atheist who is agnostic about some aspect of atheism is irrelevant to the agnosticism I stated.

So in effect ..

An Agnostic can mean ..

1) A Weak Agnostic Theist

2) A Weak Agnostic Atheist

3) A Strong Agnostic Theist

4) A Strong Agnostic Atheist