# Explanationless Prediction Is Impossible There is no such thing as a purely predictive, explanationless theory. One cannot make even the simplest prediction without invoking quite a sophisticated explanatory framework. For example, predictions about conjuring tricks apply specifically to conjuring tricks. That is explanatory information that tells us not to ‘extrapolate’ the predictions to another type of situation. So we know not to predict in general a saw will not harm a human, and that if we were to place a ball under a cup, it really would go there and stay there. The concept of a conjuring trick, and of the distinction between it and other situations, is familiar and unproblematic. So much so that it is easy to forget that it depends on substantive explanatory theories about all sorts of things such as how our senses work, how solid matter and light behave, and also subtle cultural details. Knowledge that is both familiar and uncontroversial is background knowledge. A predictive theory whose explanatory content consists only of background know- ledge is a rule of thumb. Because we usually take background knowledge for granted, rules of thumb may seem to be explanationless predictions, but that is always an illusion. There is always an [Explanation](Explanations.md), whether we know it or not, for why a rule of thumb works. Without an explanation it is impossible to recognize the circumstances under which a rule of thumb is supposed to apply. Because explanationless prediction is impossible, the methodology of excluding explanation from a science is just a way of holding one's explanations immune from criticism, and thus [Error Correction](Error%20Correction.md). Explanationless theories do no more than entrench existing, bad explanations. Doing "explanationless" science really just means doing science with *unstated*, *uncriticized* explanations. --- Date: 20250104 Links to: [Instrumentalism](Instrumentalism.md) [Beginning of Infinity](Beginning%20of%20Infinity.md) pg 15, 316 Tags: References: * []()