Pure logic can also invalidate hypotheses sometimes, but pure logic isn't experimental.

Pure thought experiments are useful because they make predictions which can then be validated. It’s part of the basic foundations of science, otherwise you’re just curve fitting across all exponential data.

Absolutely agree. Fun fact;

> Gedankenexperiment, (German: “thought experiment”) term used by German-born physicist Albert Einstein to describe his unique approach of using conceptual rather than actual experiments in creating the theory of relativity.

It would be ridiculous to say that experiments can only be done physically. Thought experiments are responsible for developing one of the most famous theories known to man.

Sure but thought experiments are not actual experiments. In fact thought experiments are... exactly the same as simulations.

To be more clear a pure thought experiment doesn’t invalidate a theory on it’s own. It’s the conflict between the results and either past or future observations/experiments that invalidates the theory. Plenty of theories that gave what seemed like insane results happened to work out.

A simulation is only as good as the model it’s based on. So sure, it’s an experiment, but one that’s only valid within the context of the model. Validating the model itself would take a “real” experiment.

Most experiments are only valid within the context of a model. Calculating X-ray diffraction patterns only matter because of how we model orbitals and light diffraction for example.

What I’m fumbling to get at is that a physical experiment can tell you that your model is flawed in ways that simulation alone can’t.

If you don’t already understand the double slit experiment, you’re unlikely to simulate light in a way that reproduces its results.

Yes, each have their advantages, e.g. here the speed of sound couldnt have been calculated in these circumstances.

The simulation could've also revealed flaws and disproved the theory w/r to itself.