It follows that automated tests tend to have bugs. So what? That doesn't at all imply that we shouldn't use them. You're presumably using a whole heap of softw

It follows that automated tests tend to have bugs. So what? That doesn't at all imply that we shouldn't use them. You're presumably using a whole heap of software to post your comments, all of which will tend to have bugs; yet you still find it useful. Boolean logic rarely captures the nuances of real-world situations, and the "rounding errors" accumulate at each step of such arguments, which can lead to some silly (but logically consistent) outcomes. I think you've fallen victim to this here. In a similar way, it's a false dichotomy to think of software as being either buggy xor perfect; of testing (or any other QA) as proving brokenness xor correctness; or to consider bugginess as implying uselessness. Notice that I framed things in terms of confidence (in a Bayesian sense) and costs; not absolutes.