I don't even understand the point you are making then (apart from me apparently arguing solely with sophisms, which is kind of a prowess).
How this "rigor" you are calling for should manifest, then? Put bluntly, my point was that every software has bug, so how "more rigor" would help? What should we do, what should we ask for in _practical_ terms?
Also, please do not rephrase this last sentence as "oh so since every software has bugs, then you obviously say that we shouldn't fix bugs, anyway other bugs will remain!".
> Also, please do not rephrase this last sentence as "oh so since every software has bugs, then you obviously say that we shouldn't fix bugs, anyway other bugs will remain!".
That's exactly what I'm going to do. Point out that we can demand better even in the face of a lack of perfection.
There are two problems here with your stance.
1. The assumption that all bugs are created equal, and
2. The assumption that the truth isn't the overriding concern of science.
It's real easy to define the set of bugs that are unacceptable in science. Any bug that would render the results inaccurate is unacceptable.
The fact that some jackass web developer wrote a bug that deleted an entire database in no way obviates that responsibility of the scientists.
How this "rigor" you are calling for should manifest, then? Put bluntly, my point was that every software has bug, so how "more rigor" would help? What should we do, what should we ask for in _practical_ terms?
Also, please do not rephrase this last sentence as "oh so since every software has bugs, then you obviously say that we shouldn't fix bugs, anyway other bugs will remain!".