Reference request: Skeptics of classical threshold theorem Early classical computing had skeptics, or at least cautious researchers, that were skeptical reliable computing results were possible. Scott Aaronson references this in a page on his site:

A: The only reason we don't need fault-tolerance machinery for classical computers is that the components are so reliable, but we haven't been able to build reliable quantum computer components yet. Presumably, if we could build extremely reliable components, we wouldn't need error correction and fault-tolerance technology.
Scott: Yes, that's what I would say. In the early days of classical computing, it wasn't clear at all that reliable components would exist. Von Neumann actually proved a classical analog of the Threshold Theorem, then later, it was found that we didn't need it. He did this to answer skeptics [emphasis mine] who said there was always going to be something making a nest in your JOHNNIAC, insects would always fly into the machine, and that these things would impose a physical limit on classical computation. Sort of feels like history's repeating itself.

source (And here is a related question about where that paper first appeared).
My request is for published research article (references) that are skeptical classical fault tolerant computing is possible, or names of individuals advocating for skepticism at the time.
It has been a while since I read von Neumann's paper, but I don't recall having the same impression that Scott Aaronson had. It seemed to me that von Neumann was addressing an argument that human brains must be qualitatively different from computers, because while human brains' individual components, neurons, are unreliable, human brains on a whole are much more reliable than electronic computers are.

While Claude Shannon does not actually make this argument explicitly in his 1953 paper "Computers and Automata" (it's quite possible other people did), he certainly brings up the question of reliability and brains. I have extracted a few sentences below:


  The brain has often been compared, perhaps overenthusiastically,
  with computing machines.
  ...
  Comparisons of this sort should be taken well salted—our understanding of brain functioning is still, in spite
  of a great deal of important and illuminating research,
  very primitive.
  ...
  The similarities between the brain and computers
  have often been pointed out. The differences are perhaps
  more illuminating, for they may suggest the important
  features missing from our best current brain
  models. Among the most important of these are:
  ...
  3. Differences in reliability organization. The brain
  can operate reliably for decades without really serious
  malfunctioning (comparable to the meaningless
  gibberish produced by a computer in trouble
  conditions) even though the components are probably
  individually no more reliable than those used
  in computers.