Science is

- An epistemology. By which I mean that "science" is the word we use to describe a particular philosophy about what distinguishes knowledge from non-knowledge, and what kinds of justifications can reasonably legitimate propositions about the world in order to say that we "know" those propositions are true. The most fundamental aspect of scientific epistemology is the reliance on observation and empirical evidence. The processes for justifying propositions tend to emphasize replication (a measure of objectivity), prediction, and falsifiability, among other heuristics.

- A diverse collection of methodologies and methods applied to different domains. What makes methods and methodologies "scientific" is the attempt to make them harmonious with the epistemological basis of the philosophy of science. What makes science diverse is that there really isn't a single "scientific method", even though there is an underlying scientific epistemology. The way you conceptualize a problem in sociological research (the methodology) and the techniques you use to gather data (the methods) are different from the conceptualization and methods of physics, but practitioners in both fields aspire to be "scientific".

- A somewhat vague way of referring to a set of social institutions, including universities, research organizations (like CERN), government agencies (NASA), and professional organizations (like the APA or the AMA). When we think about "doing science" we don't always think about it like this, but if, following the OP, we are concerned with ideas like objectivity, value-neutrality, or bias, then examining the practice of science through the lens of the social institutions, norms, and cultures which surround that practice makes sense. Examining how those institutions influence the development of scientific methodologies is the subject of various critiques in the philosophy of science, like those made by standpoint theorists.

Science[nb 1][2]:58[3] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[nb 2]

I would say that no one would have an exception with the above statement.
They may prefer a different style choice in how it's written, but you'd be hard pressed to find some who argues that science is something different than it. They may expand on it, which is why the Wiki article I just quoted doesn't end there.

On the other hand, whether it enhances lives or not could actually be debated. You are essentially saying when you say 'it means different things to different people' that science is subjective.

What science does for people is only where subjectivity enters the conversation, and not what science actually is.

The scientific method means the same thing to every scientist.

Science is Science (partly)

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Science if logic, and everything that is logic is science. Science is the only truth that have been ever demonstrated!

Science is the most reliable thing you need to trust and it is like a protecting case that covers you and keeps you from the haunting ghosts.

Science is a systematic & logical methodology which is practice to observe natural phenomena based on historical evidence and researches to solve unpredictable puzzles.

Very good coverage of the subject of science in this thread. One thing that puzzles me is: what is the role (if any) of intuition in scientific discoveries? Is science complete without intuition?

"The equation was smarter than I was", Paul Dirac said once.

Just think of Einstein.

'nuff said.

I think Einstein is a pretty bad or at least woefully incomplete example of a scientist. He was the best at one particularly glamorous aspect of it, namely using intuition, math and guesswork to come up with original ideas. But he's not really an archetypal scientist for the same reasons Tom Brady isn't an archetypal football player.

E. O. Wilson, Stephen J. Gould, and George Gamow are excellent examples of scientists that accomplished a great deal, were/are top notch in their respective field(s), made significant advances in knowledge, and found time to be helpful to the general public with writings that promote and explain science and scientific discoveries; useful to young and old alike.

Many others fit in with the above. Also many scientists work hard and diligently and are great teachers and influence many people in useful ways, this is usually completely under the radar so to speak or barely acknowledged, at least in the media/popular sense.

There are also many scientists that should just stick to science and should kept as far away from teaching or classroom duties as possible. Unfortunately, our education system doesn't work very well in that aspect. Egad, I had some terrible science teachers in undergrad and graduate school. And some really exemplary ones that helped balance things out.

At its minimal core it is a systematic pursuit of knowledge, performed in a manner that can be repeated by others.

As an institution it has come to be the academic pursuit of knowledge, defined by a system of individual credentials, peer review, references and publishing standards and supported by research, typically empirical but not always.

But really, you can do science in your kitchen at home. I don't mean that as some major criticism of the institution that science has become, because overall it works fairly well, but more as a reminder that questioning pursuit of knowledge because it doesn't have the right window dressing would be very ironic... because such kind of criticism is one of the big reasons of why the age of enlightenment had such a difficult birth to begin with.

Case in point: Look to astronomy for example, a science where the contribution of amateurs has been (and still is) substantial. It has not diluted astronomy as a scientific field, more the other way around.