In article ,
AnthonyL wrote:

It somewhat reminds me of what I learnt as an engineer "Safety factor
is simply ignorance factor".

The former shows your misunderstanding of complex issues - why do you
think there IS a single, explicable, complete answer? There very
often isn't - and, in some cases, there are questions that are quite
simply unanswerable in such terms.

So they may as well believe in a god and argue about that? They may
theorise one thing and it is in pursuit of theories that more becomes
known but to argue that one belief is better than another is the
anathama of what I understand science to be. What's the point in
believe a heavy stone will fall to the ground faster because it is
heavy?

When you are in a hole, stop digging. I was polite, and said
"misunderstanding", but the correct term is "wilful ignorance".
For an explanation, look on BBC catchup for Sir Paul Nurse's
explanation to the COVID Science Committee (or some such title),
a couple of nights back.

And the second is effectively ********. You cannot design for all
possible events - ships are designed only against (say) 'once in
a millennium' storms, not the worst possible storm, let alone such
things as Cumbre Viejo or the Storegga shelf collapsing.

That is not how engineering builds in safety factors. At least not in
the aviation (airframe and engine) environment I started off in.

Oh, yes, it is, and I have worked with and for some of those people.
Here are two examples:

Aircraft regularly drop hundreds of feet in clear air turbulence,
and are designed to survive that, but vortices are unlimited in
size and they are NOT designed to survive a drop of (say) 2,000
metres.

Engines are designed to survive moderate bird strike and hail, but
are NOT designed to survive complete flocks of geese or head-sized
hail.

Unknown factors (and the chances of such incidents ARE unknown,
because there is not enough data to estimate them) are the reason
that safety factors are needed in those cases.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.