Help understanding theory of knowledge.

["Vic Forte" <vic@vichara.f9.co.uk>]

Could anyone please help me to understand the following taken from The New
Economics P104:

"A statement devoid of rational prediction does not convey knowledge."

Let's take an example of a statement.

"My name is Vic"

So this does not convey knowledge? Is he saying here, that it only conveys
knowledge if I remain Vic? In other words the statement "My name is Vic"
does not contain the statement "tomorrow I am going to change my name".

I suppose this is an illustration of President Clinton's remark "it all
depends upon what you mean by "is'".

So we need an operational definition of the verb "to be"?

Let's take another couple of examples of statements.

"The chair I am sitting on has four legs."

"e = Mc squared"

OK, I can see how these can be interpreted as theories which can be subject
to test, and as such must contain an element of prediction.

So let's try to think of a statement that cannot contain any element of
prediction. How about "yesterday my wife had a headache, but it went away by
tea time". According to Dr Deming, this statement does not convey knowledge
because it does not contain an element of prediction.

Sorry, I don't understand. It seems to convey knowledge to me. It is
information that I did not previously have. I can say to my wife "how are
you feeling today?"

I need help here folks !
=======================================================================