" If you can accurately predict something that happens at a future time or in a different place, then that's all I need to consider it science." That's an extr

" If you can accurately predict something that happens at a future time or in a different place, then that's all I need to consider it science." That's an extraordinarily vast definition. I think it's so vast as to be not just "an opinion I disagree with" but something I'd happily label "incorrect". I can read some words on a piece of paper, put that paper down, and then predict what words will be written on it if I pick it up again and read it again. To call that science is, to my mind, incorrect. I could likewise write down a sequence of numbers on that piece of paper, and predict what they will be when I read it again. Still not science. I could save space by writing in a mathematical notation the rules for generating that sequence of numbers and again, I can predict what those numbers will be in the future when I expand that notation and get the sequence back. I could save myself the hassle of deriving the sequence on paper by having a machine do it for me. What I've now made is a deterministic, predictable future event that is no more than what I described above. It's not science.