Your argument is too powerful. It proves engineering as a whole is impossible. It equally proves we should never build any sort of building, because it could fall down and kill people and we can never be 100% sure we've prevented it.
It's an irrational appeal to emotion dressed up in rational trappings.
> 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.
It's an irrational appeal to emotion dressed up in rational trappings.