In so far as such a theory is empirically correct it will also tell us what empirical facts it should be possible to observe in a given set of circumstances.
We want to get 80%-85% of predictions right, not 100%. Or else we calibrated our estimates in the wrong way.
A rational prediction has an explanation based on theory.
If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of the same universe at a succeeding moment.
That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior....I think Obama gets up every morning with a worldview that is fundamentally wrong about reality...If you look at the continuous denial of reality, there has got to be a point where someone stands up and says that this is just factually insane.
If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with the same approximation, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by the laws.
What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.
A great book seeks to explain causality, not correlation. It works to point out the circumstances in which it works, and where it doesn't. And in so doing, it is broadly applicable.
