Specific claims with specific dates are falsifiable, but saying that there will be a singularity in the next 40 years is insufficiently specific (without carefully defining the term singularity, which very few singularitarians do), and proponents of such claims have a tendency to push back their prediction dates as the time when those predictions will need to come true approaches (AI, flying cars, the end of the world, etc.). It is the lack of specificity, both in the conditions of falsehood and in the time frame, that renders the singularitarians' claims as unscientific.

The work 'unscientific' is a very loaded word. It can be a powerful weapon, able to paint any assertion not presented like a scientific paper into the equivalent of astrology. It has been used in many instances to discredit quite reasonable (and correct) claims. Claims like 'smoking causes lung cancer'. Global Warming...

What would you have said to those who in 1994 where predicting the impact the internet would have on the world over the next 10-15 years?

There are those have attempted to provide precise definitions of elements of the singularity. The 'turing test' is an example and there are many others if you care to look.

The Turing Test is not an element of the singularity--it pre-exists the idea of the singularity by a sizable margin, and was an effort to define the idea of artificial intelligence. I would certainly encourage people who wish to believe in the coming singularity to set similar concrete goals for their vision of the future. But, even then, the idea of the singularity will not be science--although the specific, falsifiable claims might be.

Claims made in 1994 that the internet would change the world were not science (although some specific claims might have been)--this does not make them useless or wrong. It isn't a scientific claim that the Mona Lisa is a good painting, or that dogs are loyal. But most people would agree with both of these statements.

Most predictions (ignoring those of incredibly limited scope) about the future are unscientific. This, by itself, does not make them false. But trying to pretend to be science is rarely a good sign.

The Turing Test was made a lot earlier yes. The prediction that it would be passed before 2030 is strongly related to the singularity. If (when?) the cost of owning and operating one million real time turing-test-passing entities was less than $1000 per year (currency is another definitional problem) then I think we can safely say we'd have reached a concrete landmark on the road to 'the singularity'. I just came up with that in a few minutes - there are actually people who devote a lot more time to this and yes they do have some pretty concrete predictions.

Do you accept that notion that there are some activities that are more 'scientific' than others? Or does your definition of the word only encompass a boolean value for each activity? I am in the former camp and frankly believe that anyone who holds the 'absolute boolean value' notion probably has a mental disorder (I can't describe it any other way).

The original context of the article was that the singularity was more a religious idea than a scientific one. In context of the concept of a scale of 'how scientific' something is I believe the the singularity and the surrounding body of work associated with it is far closer to science than religion. That was the point I was trying to make.

So I think I get it - you think the word scientific should only apply to something if it say 98% perfectly applicable whereas my standards for use are a bit lower at maybe 85%. And of course the common criteria is probably somewhere around about 50%.