> Your argument is too powerful. It proves engineering as a whole is impossible. No. It's an argument that we have no good way of estimating the damage caused

> Your argument is too powerful. It proves engineering as a whole is impossible. No. It's an argument that we have no good way of estimating the damage caused by rare, spectacular failures in complex systems. But thanks for the down-vote. > It's an irrational appeal to emotion dressed up in rational trappings. No. It's pointing out an epistemic hole, one that is essentially the reverse of the sunrise problem [0], that has been discussed by countless philosophers of science, probability theorists, and scientists across dozens of fields. I suggest you read the article I linked and some of the papers it cites rather than make a spectacle of your downright hurr-durr ignorance of the subject. 0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem