Model-based experiments as epistemic evidence in paleoecology

Where ordinary experiments are impossible and observational data scarce and indirect — particularly in paleoecosystems — computational experiments are often our only means to learn about reality. There are good arguments to count such model-based predictions as evidence, testing hypotheses and updating our beliefs about the world. However, the epistemic weight of computational experiments depends on an adequate model representation of the target system, transparency about predictive uncertainty, and the avoidance of confirmation bias. I argue that mechanistic models are particularly suited for paleoecological predictions but that iterative uncertainty analyses should guide their development. Using a Bayesian framework I propose preregistration and blinded analysis as tools to strengthen the epistemic value of computational experiments. Here, a preregistration marks the boundary between exploratory model development, which establishes credence in the model, and predictive model application, which tests hypotheses. As good modeling practice I suggest clarifying epistemic goals at the outset of a project and accordingly choose methods to maximize the epistemic weight of the computational experiment. • Good modeling practices strengthen the epistemic weight of computational experiments. • After completed model development, computational experiments should be preregistered. • Uncertainty analyses should guide mechanistic model development.