It's actually bizarre to see someone on HN conflate software and hardware. Your argument appears to be, "Hardware can be observed to operate properly, therefore software necessarily gives correct results."
There are a variety of arguments to make here, from the flaws in individual models, to the secrecy of source code, manipulation of data, politics, historical examples of incorrect scientific conclusions, and the general fallibility of humans (who perform the science).
But bother with any of those when you are claiming that, if software exists which ostensibly intends to perform a task, it must necessarily do so correctly. And then you accuse others of illogic and selective acceptance of science. That's just...bizarre. In the context of discussing belief vs. knowledge, that smacks of what one might call a "true believer."
The argument is that software can be used to check hardware, and, more broadly, that one does not need to execute every step of a process in order to have confidence in its results.
Sorry, but how is this point relevant to the discussion?
> more broadly, that one does not need to execute every step of a process in order to have confidence in its results.
That is broad, indeed. I should hope that, before reaching conclusions and making claims and calls to action that would result in the poverty of billions, one would take pains to verify every step of the process used to reach those conclusions.
Of course, what constitutes "verification" is a matter of opinion. To some, the models are sufficient. To others, they are grossly insufficient and have not proven accurate looking forward nor backward. It is a mystery why they continue to be asserted as proof.
There are a variety of arguments to make here, from the flaws in individual models, to the secrecy of source code, manipulation of data, politics, historical examples of incorrect scientific conclusions, and the general fallibility of humans (who perform the science).
But bother with any of those when you are claiming that, if software exists which ostensibly intends to perform a task, it must necessarily do so correctly. And then you accuse others of illogic and selective acceptance of science. That's just...bizarre. In the context of discussing belief vs. knowledge, that smacks of what one might call a "true believer."