I wouldn't limit the goal of science to developing predictive models, to completely understand a behaviour we must also be able to describe, explain and control the behaviour.
I would suggest that describing and explaining a behavior is the same as constructing a predictive model of that behavior, and that controlling it is in the realm of engineering, not science.
The problem with that is that some things we currently regard as scientific can neither be described well or controlled. Quantum mechanics is a good example. The defining characteristic that still makes it science is that we can predict things using mathematical equations (although not as well as we would like).
Which brings me to an interesting question. If a hypothetical alien civilization develops technology using different types of math than us, different analogies than us (particles/wave, etc.), and different beliefs than us, is it still science? I would argue yes. If they can create sophisticated technology that is predictable, the end effect is the same that we humans have.
Which brings me to my last question. Is string theory science? Again, I would say yes. Because although its predictions are not currently capable of being tested, they are in principle capable of being tested with more sophisticated technology. There is a clear path to developing a test of its predictions.
So I think "science" can best be described as the pursuit of prediction.
