This is critically wrong, and misses the point of the cliché entirely.
Absence of evidence, in your case via a clean building inspection, does not mean the building is safe. It just means the checklist of known items was considered and nothing bad found.
Ask a building inspector if their clean report proves nothing is wrong with the building.
They will be firm and quick to inform you that it’s not a warranty — anything not checked was not covered. Items not covered could still be significant problems.
That’s the whole point of the saying. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Sure, but if someone accuses your house of having issues, and you retort that you've had it inspected by professionals, a reply of "Hah! That's evidence, not proof!" is just a bit smarmy.
A few weeks ago there was in incident[0] in Jersey, where some people called fire fighters one evening because they could smell gas, the fire fighters didn’t find any leaks, and the building literally blew up the next morning. Experts make mistakes, and failing to understand that evidence != proof can literally kill people. Sometimes, making the distinction is smarmy; other times, it’s just being sensible.
Okay, but... we're spit balling database sizes. None of this is safety critical, or even in the general neighborhood of things where it's important enough to go and mathematically prove that our numbers are perfect.
