Codecels win Nobel Prize in Chemistry, completely over for chemistcels

Literally uncritically regurgitated dogma lol worse than religioncels

The only phil of science this STEMcel knows is Popper and Kuhn, what a classic 😂😂😂 FYI both are completely irrelevant for contemporary phil of science and questions about the epistemic status of non-physical experiments. It's completely uncontroversial (in phil of science departments (aka smarter ppl than STEMcels)) that computer simulations create the same kind of evidence that """actual experiments""" do

Reality has a surprising amount of detail

If actual experiments differ from theory, that just means the theory needs to be updated.

Some stuff in physics matches REALLY well, particularly quantum physics. Like Feynman would always brag that for a few key quantities, the theoretical value and experimental values only differed by like 0.0000000000001%.

Round up more hobos, dummy.

High throughput can scan thousands of compounds. Typically you would run compounds you already know work, some that have similar characteristics, some that have very different characteristics, and some that work for other purposes. They are typically extremely small amounts of natural products for each sample so pretty cheap and fast.

There are giant libraries of "drug-like" molecules that you use. They tend to be biased towards molecules that are easy to make by chemical manufacturers, which yes, is a problem. When a new good reaction comes along you'll often get new classes of compounds out of that. Depending on your target, you know what's had some interaction in the past, so you start with stuff that looks like that.

Once you get a hit or several, the compound isn't good enough as-is, so you start modifying it. In theory, computations could help you here as well, and maybe it's starting to, I don't know. Start making chemical modifications, see what helps it hit the target better. Of course, it has to do other stuff too: get into the target organs, not degrade too quickly, not be too toxic. There's various things you can try to make each of those better, but it's still largely guess-and-check. And usually it doesn't work. There's a reason that new medicine is expensive: it needs to not only pay for its own R&D, but also the R&D of everything that hasn't panned out.