You seam to confuse knowing with faith!
how you describe agnosticism is how I am using it, and I am sorry but no straw man, just the fact that faith requires trust that something is, agnosticism requires leaving it aside.
we can not verify enlightenment is possible the dhamma is true in all its details, but we can test and through inferance trust that the path does what it says on the tin, so to speak.
Agnosticism says until it is proven I wont use it.
Saddha says I have no proof for this but I will trust it is correct and test it as I go.
I do not know who ted is, but setting something aside because it maybe wrong, but open to it being correct is not faith.
Through my experiance of practice I have found what is said on the tin to be true so far, and have faith that what I have not seen for myself is true also so it is part of my working model until I can either prove it is false or which I believe is more likely to be true.
and what the Buddha put aside due to it not being useful for the training, is quite well documented, and can you prove the Buddha was enlightened and taught what he said on the tin, through direct experience of the end result? or do you have saddha that it is so?
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.