[tMcGrath]

I'm not sure that's all there is to it - at least some scientists are in it for the explanation: they want to know more about something. In this case the prediction is just a useful check that their proposed explanation is compatible with reality.

Of course, this isn't typically why science gets funded - we want the engineering applications that are enabled by our ability to calculate - but a version of science that's all prediction, no explanation seems very unappealing (not to mention sterile for further investigation).

[pdonis]

> at least some scientists are in it for the explanation

What the scientists are in it for is one thing. But what confidence non-scientist members of the public should have in claims made by scientists is another. The latter is what prediction is for: the better the predictive track record of the scientific claims, the higher the confidence they deserve.