I’m working on a paper about epistemic possibility, and I need some help. Can someone tell me what epistemic possibility is? (This is a trick question.) To show why this is puzzling, here is a ‘problem case’:
S, a person of ordinary mathematical abilities, performs a complex mathematical calculation, which leads to a certain mathematical claim, P. S and I then have the following dialogue:
Me: That was a pretty difficult calculation, and you’ve made mistakes before. Could you be wrong about P?
S: Yes. I could be wrong in thinking that P.
S speaks wisely here. But, if P is true, it is necessary in (what is usually called) the strongest sense: logical necessity. So in what sense could S be wrong? Well, it’s epistemically possible that S is wrong: yes, but how is that to be interpreted, such that it yields a kind of possibility broader than logical possibility?