filtherton

I don't think what you're talking about here could be considered evidence. You're talking about the things you tell yourself about the bridges you cross so that you feel comfortable crossing them. They are not the same thing as evidence that a bridge will not collapse.

Here's why they aren't evidence:

A reasonable assumption is that all bridges that were built for carrying cars and have collapsed have done so after cars have driven on them. The fact that a bridge can bear a load is not evidence that a bridge will not collapse, in fact, if you look up the process of metal fatigue it will become clear to you that the more cars that drive across a bridge the more likely it is, even if only theoretically, to collapse. The fact that cars have driven across a bridge is in no way whatsoever evidence that it won't collapse. I really can't make it much plainer than that. If you continue to push this point, the only supposition you will be providing evidence for is the one that states that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, i don't mean to sound like a prick, but i don't think you're right at all about this, and if there's anyone who can tell me i'm full of shit i fully encourage them to do so.

As for the fact that most bridges don't collapse being evidence that a given bridge won't collapse, come on. That's not how things work. In the parlance of probability, since apparently many atheists are probability nuts, the odds that a bridge will collapse can quite reasonably modeled be as a continuous time markov process, which is just a fancy way of saying that the odds of a bridge collapsing have pretty much nothing to do with the odds of another bridge collapsing. I think that this is a reasonable assumption, at least in the short term, because there is nothing about a bridge collapsing that necessarily has any effect on whether another bridge will collapse. This isn't necessarily the case, since apparently there are some folks who think that a collapsed bridge is a sign that we need to start spending more money on bridges, a fact which might suggest that a collapsed bridge could inspire people to actually elect leaders who place a priority on maintaining the nation's infrastructure, which would lessen the odds that another bridge will fall. Unfortunately, these people aren't in the majority, so we'll see. Another reason that a markov process also might not be a completely accurate model is that the lessons learned from one bridge collapse may inspire better bridge design, and/or better bridge maintenance. However, since bridges aren't built all that often, and given no broad, reactionary public support for infrastructure maintenance, it should make sense that the odds of an existing bridge collapsing depend not at all on whether another bridge has collapsed.

But i agree, this is tedious, and only tangentially related to the topic of the thread, so be that as it may, it isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things.