This philosophy runs the risk of missing any ultimate reality, because of refusal to come to any conclusion. More significant is the avoidance of disagreeable or painful decisions by resorting to agnosticism. This is sometimes referred to as the convenience of agnosticism. When we come to a point of decision between two views, we can do one of three things. We can opt for one view or for the other, or we can decide not to decide.
Skepticism encourages the latter, and when no decision is made, progress can be hampered.
An attitude has developed that science is not an objective search for truth but more of a transient sojourn through ever-changing ideas. The authors attribute the loss of financial support for science in England and the rise of the creation movement in the United States to this lack of certainty. As soon as a new idea is proposed, it is usually challenged. My personal opinion is that science does discover truth, albeit a number of false pathways may be taken along the way, but current agnosticism, relativism and skepticism would tend to deny this, and scientific truth is endangered. In academic pursuits, how often we are satisfied with just presenting several views and not bringing our study to a conclusion.