  Contra Dardashti, Th\'ebault, and Winsberg (2017), this paper defends an
analysis of arguments from analogue simulations as instances of a familiar kind
of inductive inference in science: arguments from material analogy (Hesse,
Models and Analogies in Science, Univ Notre Dame Press, 1963). When understood
in this way, the capacity of analogue simulations to confirm hypotheses about
black holes can be deduced from a general account - fully consistent with a
Bayesian standpoint - of how ordinary arguments from material analogy confirm.
The proposed analysis makes recommendations about what analogue experiments are
worth pursuing that are more credible than Dardashti, Hartmann, Th\'ebault, and
Winsberg's (2019). It also offers a more solid basis for addressing the
concerns by Crowther, Linneman, and W\"utrich (2019), according to which
analogue simulations are incapable of sustaining hypotheses concerning black
hole radiation.
