Nevertheless, my opinion is that when eventually Economics does become a science it is more likely to resemble Keynesianism than the Austrian school so favoured by this forum's hivemind.
That is quite a fascinating statement to make.
Aside from the fact that you seem to assert that a field of study is not a science so long as YOU don't declare it one, would you care to share how you arrived at this conclusion?
What empirical and logical (=scientific) criteria did you apply to both those schools in order to infer that the Keynesians' theories are more accurate than the Austrians'?