I know Peter Denning does not regard tinkering as experimentation. The theory around superconductivity is poorly understood. Perhaps, physics should do less tinkering. The computer science people worry, but this does not stop the physicists. Only ETA systems has LN2 cooled computer systems on the market.
Formal methods are no panacea.
Their use does not guarantee error-free systems. If someone suffers damage as a result of that unprofessional act, it is right that they should be compensated. Customers whose life or business depends on their computer systems working correctly will increasingly want the assurance that their software developers are applying the best available methods. In many cases, this will include the rigorous use of formal methods. I can readily accept such comments - what concerns me is whether it will ever be possible to make reasoned judgements about the risks attendant on using a given complex program, and about how best to apportion resources amongst the various different techniques, such as verification, testing and the use of design redundancy, which might assist in achieving some given required level of reliability from the program.