I had a visceral negative reaction to the idea that computers should be presumed to be working correctly, but I was having trouble articulating in precise words

I had a visceral negative reaction to the idea that computers should be presumed to be working correctly, but I was having trouble articulating in precise words what was wrong with it. I mean, obviously we get work done with use computers every day and they seem to work alright. A commenter at that link does a good job: >To treat the operation of an extensive software system as being a mechanical device is as gross a category error as treating an airliner as being merely a collection of nuts and bolts. In either case we can satisfy ourselves that the elementary parts are performing within specification without having gained any confidence that the complete assemblage will function properly under all conditions to which it will be reasonably exposed; indeed we won’t even be confident that we understand what it was exposed to. Even showing that it has passed a collection of tests isn’t adequate: one needs to see what unfixed issues are being registered against it and how they are being resolved (fixed? Swept under the carpet to keep the numbers below since arbitrary threshold?) The opposing side in case hinging upon accuracy of computer records should have the right to access the issue database, and absence of a well-run system or a large number of issues in it (or evidence that issues have been “scrubbed”) should be taken as a strong argument that the computer records are unreliable. >Much could be learned by the software industry from the culture of aviation safety, where even minor incidents are followed up by detailed investigations intentionally run in a non-judgemental way and the findings distilled into public reports and recommendations. Similarly, one of the best legal developments in recent years has been the increasing tendency to publish detailed judgements.