Kalon said:  *"Yeah... That's why I always look to my baker to lay down the procedures of the triple-bypass I need. The grocer defines my root canal... What, you mean your butcher didn't determine how that diamond was to cut? tsk.. tsk... tsk..."

*You're missing the point by a couple of light years.   It's generally a good idea for dentists to know about dentistry, butchers about dealing with meat, musicians about music.   I have no objection to dentists who play the violin, or butchers who like the flute, for that matter.

The point is that it is dangerous to let certain practitioners of a speciality dictate the bounds of that speciality, which is what Pohl was arrogantly trying to do, in the footsteps of Le Corbusier, Picasso, Schoenberg and, for that matter, Erich Ludendorff.   Pohl was entitled to his opinion, but he was deliberately seeking to re-define his chosen field to fit his own efforts.   As with the others named above, people have often been daft enough to take them at their own self-evaluation, although few people enjoy living in a Le Corbusier concrete monstrosity and Picasso is not really a popular painter and only an idiot wants to sit and listen to Schoenberg's "music".

Mickmca:  to fit the strict definition, science fiction probably could do with including some science, although that is such a broad term, in its true meaning, that I don't think that that helps you in propping up your Pohl.   After all, "Haghia Sophia" could be translated as "Sacred Science", but I can't imagine what Justinian would have made of Kubrick (perhaps there is a movie in there, all the same...).    Science fiction doesn't need to be futuristic, as you imply, although your examples seem to acknowledge that, in fact.    Where you get the idea that "Gulliver's Travels" qualifies as science fiction, though, I can't imagine.   By your own definition, or Pohl's, it is a fish out of water.   It's a satire, with situations set up for their satirical value, which usually means that Swift describes contexts which are consciously contrary to science.   You have lands entirely populated by tiny people and another that is a home to giants.   You have a land ruled by horses and one where people can live forever.   Then there is the airborne island.   Not a lot of science there.   It is intentionally the opposite.   "The War of the Worlds" is usually regarded as a science fiction classic, too, but it's really a political allegory.   You won't find a whole heap of science in there, either.   Not a bad book, but not a patch on "Gulliver's Travels".