Note the only way for scientific knowledge to be JTB is to justify it within the Scientific Framework and System, i.e. especially Scientific Method, peer review, etc. There is no other way for a scientist to justify any scientific hypothesis as a scientific theory.
Thus for Buddhism one of its justification can be borrowed from scientific knowledge together with its own philosophical rationalization.
Empirically possible. What has been considered in science as empirically possible has shifted over time.
In science, for example, it was considered either not possible or unknowable if animals were conscious, had cognitive processes etc. In fact it would fuck up your career to say otherwise. All along ordinary people knew animals has consciousness and science has let go of its bias and confusion on this point.
There are paradigmatic shifts inside science. Empirically possible is very much an unusable term. One can say that something does not seem to fit with current models, but given what was considered not possible within the history of science and then turned out to be possible, your term is useless, though the thinking behind it is unfortunately quite common, even within science where they should know better.
Empirically possible is a principle that is not expected change with time as far as science is concern.
Empirically possible meant whatever the scientific hypothesis or speculation, it must have empirical elements only.
If I say, “it is empirically possible for science to confirm there is a tea pot orbiting a planet some light years away in the Universe”
that is a valid scientific speculation [not hypothesis].
This is definitely empirically possible because all the specific elements individually within the speculation are empirical. This can be confirm when the possible empirical evidence for justifications.
However, any normal person will know the empirical possibility of the above at present is very very slim, perhaps 0.0000001%.
If I use ‘squared-circle’ then the whole statement is not empirically possible at all because a ‘squared-circle’ is an empirically impossible.