Roy,
It sounds like you're saying that when presented with computed
results
we have no recourse but to put faith in the programmer. That's not
at
all so. We have to test the results against measurements or other
calculations and resolve the differences before we can put much
faith in
any model or program.

With the rest, I agree.

==================================

Roy, put a new battery in your hearing aid. ;o)

The danger of putting much faith in the programmer is that he may
belong to same set of old wives as the measurer and therefore make the
same mistakes. Misconceptions are known to be popular. The two sets
of incorrect results, measured and computed, then fatally agree with
each other due to the correlation.

It's impossible for a program to be more reliable than the programmer.
It can only be worse.

Your use of the word "before" implies a time span. The reliability of
anything accumulates with experience, use and TIME. (Don't anybody
mention bath tubs).

Reliability is Quality vs Time.

And Quality, in engineering terms, is the degree of conformance to
specified requirements. Or, in more worldly terms as may be applied
to computer programs, the fitness for the intended purpose.

Thus we can say that the accuracy of Eznec, etc., as determined over a
number of years, is highly fit for its intended purposes.
----
Reg, G4FGQ