In response to those commentators puzzling over the evidential status of computer simulations, you should know that this is currently an open question being deb

In response to those commentators puzzling over the evidential status of computer simulations, you should know that this is currently an open question being debated in the field of Epistemology of Measurement, which aims to give a rigorous account of what it means to `measure' something. It is not at all obvious that simulations should be excluded from the category of `evidence', especially when the simulation depends heavily on the input of observational data. Consider, for instance, using a simulation to interpolate the temperature in some location based on the actually observed temperatures in surrounding regions. Let's also not forget that modern precision measurement is highly dependent on making detailed computer models to predict how the measuring instruments function, blurring the line somewhat between simulation and measurement. Some references: [1] Nature: "Virtually a measurement", by Wendy Parker. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-01138-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-01138-3 [2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Measurement in Science": https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/measurement-science/#EpiMea https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/measurement-science/#EpiM... [3] "The problem of observational grounding: how does measuring generate evidence?" by Eran Tal. Video: https://vimeo.com/184697369 https://vimeo.com/184697369 Article (open access): https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/772/1/012001/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/772/1/0...