How can computer simulations produce new knowledge?

It is often claimed that scientists can obtain new knowledge about\udnature by running computer simulations. How is this possible? I answer this\udquestion by arguing that computer simulations are arguments. This view\udparallels Norton’s argument view about thought experiments. I show that\udcomputer simulations can be reconstructed as arguments that fully capture the\udepistemic power of the simulations. Assuming the extended mind hypothesis,\udI furthermore argue that running the computer simulation is to execute the\udreconstructing argument. I discuss some objections and reject the view that\udcomputer simulations produce knowledge because they are experiments. I conclude by comparing thought experiments and computer simulations, assuming\udthat both are arguments