Tommy and Michael,
I guess, I'm not making myself clear.
The definition of 'science' you quote from Wikipedia is simply wrong for it presumes (a) science knowledge predicts the future and (b) that it is an enterprise. The part of being "testable" is somewhat right.
"Science" is the knowledge of consequences. Consequences talk about finding the root cause of a result i.e. the result B was caused by action A.
This B-A relationship is not saying that A-B is also true. B-A is NOT a predictor of A-B because there are too many factors that are necessary to be in place before B-A is true. Without this long list of factors A-B is not realized and science says so very clearly.
The implication you seem to give when you talk about products and technology is also incorrect and NOT applicable to the knowledge called science. Products have a defined result e.g. I press the computer key with the label "D" on it and a "d" appears on the screen. Everything else the key can do is restricted. Thus, products don't allow themselves to do anything other than the restrictions technology places on these products.
The few minds that figure out how to make 'pressing the D key' produce a smiley face on the screen is the creative result that only knowledge at the "science" level can produce in those hands whose minds are challenged for reasons unknown to the rest of us.
Thank you for identifying what I have to make more clear in my essay.
-- Ajay
