I'm nitpicking, but there is not even a chance that this could be "science" with any coherent definitions of science and future. For example there is Karl Poppe

I'm nitpicking, but there is not even a chance that this could be "science" with any coherent definitions of science and future. For example there is Karl Poppers falsification standard. Future is never falsifiable as long as it remains in the future. Another approach would be this: Future is impossible to research, as you can only research entities that exist or phenomena that is happening. Future entities and future phenomena do not exist yet ( by definition ) so you cannot research them. -> no science of future. What we are talking here is scientific prediction. "Scientific" is just another word for good and only means something when compared to another method of prediction that can be shown to be worse. So we very much agree. I just wanted to write this out because the Future studies crowd has bothered me for some time now.