I didn't want to make the claim that all simulations are bad. I said I don't trust simulations per se, because I've seen a lot of cases where they are just plain wrong. I remember someone saying that treasure map/masterpiece is worse than masterpiece because simulations show it, only to be proven wrong by someone else who made a few simple corrections in the code. I've also seen simulators having a <50% winrate with wharf/KC against simple BM, just to make two examples.
The results of a simulation are as good as the person who programmed it. When someone presents you simulation data and you respond by saying that you don't trust it, you accuse him of being either incompetent or sloppy, an accusation you are socially obliged to back up, e.g. by specifying what you think he did wrong. Saying that you have seen someone else mess up a simulation in the past is not enough.
I disagree that by saying "I don't trust this simulation" I accuse the guy who created it of being sloppy or incompetent, or really of anything. For one, the substant matter may so so complex that even a really good simulation makes lots of tactical mistakes, but more importantly, "I don't trust XX" is just a fact which, by itself, doesn't imply anything. I happen to be a rationalist, and I also happen to study programming, but someone else may distrust simulations in general, or he might not be able to read code, or doesn't want to. According to your logic, he is then obligated to blindly trust every simulation someone presents to him.
Really, I think what you trust or don't trust on is entierly your choice. My reasoning can be summerized as this:
-> I have seen lots of simulations that I know are bad
-> i have heard good players saying that lots of simulations are bad
-> I have heard good players saying that simulation in general has very little significance on actual tactic/strategy
-> I disagree with the general approach to simulation I've seen in this forum, at least to some degree
=> If someone uses simulation as an argument without telling me anything about its quality, I'm not going to blindy swallow it.
Disagreeing with my reasoning is fine, of course. but if you say I accuse someone you're interpreting things that aren't there.
Generally, I do believe that the guy who makes an argument should back it up, not the one who is on the receiving end.