Can there be a prediction without a principle?

Answer 1

Yes.

Prediction based on proven principles is a given. It is not rocket science.

However, science is slow in recognition, science is often obscure.

Most important of all is not many of us get it. Applied science may still in the realm of trickery, magic and even witchcraft.

What is an obvious outcome to the mathematically inclined or observant scientist will be met with "How did you know"? How did you predict this? *whisper* work of the devil*whisper.

Answer 2

No. Keep in mind that the word 'prediction' is used as a synonym for the word 'prescribed description' or 'prescribed prognosis', a mistake made by many professionals. This error is phenomenological, a failure of and for scientific phenomena as moral agency and conceptual relations for mediating subjective and objective relating, i.e.psychology. We may conceive a future as conscious concept of the virtues of principle continuity in time as structuring physical phenomena, e.g. gravity, a major structural principle that orients description in directional descriptions and physical procedure schemata as self relation to gravity and objective orientation for reality its self (water flows down, but hot air goes up) as against the conscious self (I may move my self up, but I may fall down). Without this basic orientation and a kind of logical or symbolic communication, there can not be prediction.

The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative.

Trickery? You put your finger in a lit candle, you get burned. If that's trickery, see your psychiatrist.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/na/nature2.htm#N218

§ 221.

Light behaves as a general identity, initially in this determination of diversity, or the determination by the understanding of the moment of totality, then to concrete matter as an external and other entity, as to darkening. This contact and external darkening of the one by the other is colour.

According to the familiar Newtonian theory, white, or colourless light consists of five or seven colours; - the theory itself can not say exactly how many. One can not express oneself strongly enough about the barbarism, in the first place, of the conception that with light, too, the worst form of reflection, the compound, was seized upon, so that brightness here could consist of seven darknesses, or water could consist of seven forms of earth. Further, the ineptitude, tastelessness, even dishonesty of Newton's observations and experimentations must be addressed, as well as the equally bad tendency to draw inferences, conclusions, and proofs from impure empirical data. Moreover, the blindness of the admiration given to Newton's work for nearly one and a half centuries must be noted, the narrowmindedness of those admirers who defend his conceptions, and, in particular, the thoughtlessness with which a number of the immediate conclusions of that theory (for example, the impossibility of an achromatic telescope) were dropped, although the theory itself is still maintained. Finally, there is the blindness of the prejudice that the theory rests on something mathematical, as if the partly false and one-sided measurements, as well as the quantitative determinations brought into the conclusions, would provide any basis for the theory and the nature of the thing itself.-A major reason why the clear, thorough, and learned illumination by Goethe of this darkness concerning light has not had a more effective reception is doubtlessly because the thoughtlessness and simplemindedness, which one would have to confess for following Newton for so long, would be entirely too great.


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slactual.htm