Brant,

 

I'll have a hard time arguing against the point that science has become political, and that this is bad for science, politics, and society. And if we should err here, it should be on the side of pure science, just for the sake of increasing our understanding. Nothing keeps politicians honest, and keeps technology from destroying the environment and poisoning the people, like a thorough understanding of the whole thing, and how we relate to nature. The more we know, the more cautious we become, and the more immune we are to fads and scams.

 

But I still agree with the definition of science as being something that benefits society. The difference is all in the connotations. Does benefiting society mean raping the environment for a quick buck (or to get campaign contributions from big business), or does benefiting society mean coming to understand how we relate to nature? I think we would all go with the latter. :) So I think that the definition is a good one, but perhaps we have to spell out more of what we mean by it.