Is agnosticism an example of epistemic skepticism which wonders whether any knowledge is possible?
All knowledge is worthless without that area of the unknown. Even in science or especially in science, recognizing the unknown is necessary to keep it valid, since there are always new discoveries and some changes to established beliefs. Give me a humble doctor with an open mind anytime over a closed mind.The worst thing we can do is to define the the unknown about creation. To say there is definitely a God, or that definitely there is no God, is the same thing. And then, how do you define God? Even those who disbelieve in God could define that which they do not believe exists. So many are stuck on Jesus. There are definitions beyond that. So, in a sense, there are as many Gods as there are people. Each has his own concept about God and creation and life. To sum up...knowledge is impossible without acknowledging the unknown.
dunno if i could cite it, but i guess "gnostic" was originally meant as more of a put-down, and im pretty sure you are on to the original meaning of "agnostic," although you can witness the dunning-kruger reactions for yourself. But i guess scientists are even now questioning the validity of "objective reality."
why would your Q make someone mad, iyo?
I see them as distinct. Of course agnosticism may arise from epistemic skepticism, but it may also be based a lack of empirical evidence. Coupled with a firm conviction that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Personally I am an atheist. For one thing it's the simplest answer to "lack of evidence". Although Ocam's Razor has no real axiomatic basis.