That is the scientific method. And it is presented by one of our best ever thinkers.
Simulation fits right up front in the, "First we guess it" part of the method.
That is what happened here. Now don't get me wrong. It is a good guess, but that is all it is.
Next step is to compute the consequences.
Simulation applies here too. We can arrive at something we could compare to nature, the authority.
That has not happened. Until it does, words like "evidence" are well out of reasonable bounds.
Simulation as an input to the time tested, production proven scientific method is hardly controversial.
Saying that any kind of science has happened yet is and should be controversial!
No science has been done, yet we see words like "evidence" and "shows"
I do not know what "scientific process" means. Feels a bit more like a P.T. Barnum style upsell for potential money getting than it does science when the sim work is framed this way.
If you ask me, the people doing that are jumping the gun. The upsell is unnecessary.
Simulation suggests water may seperate into two different liquids when in these conditions...
The differences are small, but really important. Stuff line this tends to add right up and suddenly we will have a generation of people who are not well trained skeptics able to do solid science.
Given the rapid pace of change, and how compelling this stuff can be, I feel it is important to hold the line on solid science.