I have noticed a type of fallacious reasoning that conflates truth and success. For example, a company might assume their predictive models are correct because these models make the company more money. However, turns out this was a conflation of success and truth; those models were incorrect. A few years later, the models will collapse or make incorrect predictions and it will be revealed that they were based on shoddy or untrue principles all along. The fact the system predicts the outcome does not imply the system is based on the true principles underlying the system.
There are other cases this fallacy in history. Genghis Khan, for example, sent letters (e.g. to the Shah of Bukhara) arguing that his lightning-fast conquests were proof that his Mongol forces were blessed or guided by God. The Muslims made the same argument after they conquered an area almost the size of the Roman Empire in two centuries. Countless groups argue that their success, growth, or size is proof of their validity or even religious truth.
Another example is in science. Ptolemy's model of astronomy explained the motion of the heavens by assuming each planet moved on a sphere called an epicycle (see full explanation). It also placed the Earth at the center of the solar system. Its predictive success was unsurpassed until Copernicus, and it is still used by planetarium projectors to model the solar system. However, we now know it is a woefully inaccurate description of the universe. In retrospect, it seems clearly fallacious to conclude the Ptolemaic model is true because it was successful.
Do you agree that arguments of this form are fallacious? Does this fallacy have a name?