Simulations don't "verify" physical findings, they let us tweak the parameters under which we might encounter findings, and now we're not done: 1. practical

Simulations don't "verify" physical findings, they let us tweak the parameters under which we might encounter findings, and now we're not done: 1. practical observation (optional) 2. a hypothesis (either from first principles or to explain a practical observation) 3. testing that hypothesis 4. establish as theory if it holds up, or mark as "known to not be true" if it doesn't. You've not scienced until you're done with step 3, because step 2 on its own cannot "confirm" or "verify" anything found in step 1. The most important part is to confirm that a theory is not accidental, giving simulations a disadvantage: it is far easier to accidentally find parameters in a simulation than it is when you're on paper from first principles - even if that paper's Mathematica or R. You can always find some set of values, parameters, and functions that result in the thing you're looking for, so once you find such a set, you then still need to go back to the lab, verify that it holds up, and have others verify it holds up, too. (the result of a single study is merely a very interesting anecdote. It's not data until your findings can be reproduced, and it's not a scientific theory until it's proven to hold up. Until then it's just a hypothesis)