@ArtemKaznatcheev, your definition of science is extremely weak. It is hard to distinguish from religion or philosophy. I am a physicist myself, you might have guessed that much :), and I do believe that other wannabe sciences should be modelled with our same level of demand, no less. Physics, and any good science, is predictive every day, not just at special romantic situations. I use predictions in my daily work. That's why everybody relies on physics, they put their lives in our hands, e.g.: when you travel by plane. And nobody would risk their lives on the predictions of e.g. economy.

Prediction is mandatory, a nice story is not. A nice story to help understand is strongly recommended, sure. But science can proceed without. E.g., quantum mechanics as seen by Bohr. Without the ability to make predictions, science is just another narrative.

I think the answer is OK, but there is a point in which I strongly disagree. You say that science provides explanation and, sometimes, predictions. If science is not required to provide predictions beyond the observed data, it's no different from myth and religion. Indeed your answer is scientific in this sense: it predicts that, whenever a pseudoscience succeeds it's always through extensive use of personification.

@Artem, History may play a role here. Maybe sexual endowment was an evolutionary trait, and it is not anymore... Indeed, in most historical cultures, your sexual partner is chosen by your parents, considering mostly cultural arguments... So, it's a good idea to hide the sexual endowment in that environment.