So in your opinion, is "science fiction" still the best name for that category of fiction? It seems like there's a lot of wiggle room for what could be considered sci-fi.
I've always been partial to Stanley Schmidt's definition:Basically, we publish science fiction stories. That is, stories in which some aspect of future science or technology is so integral to the plot that, if that aspect were removed, the story would collapse. Try to picture Mary Shelley's Frankenstein without the science and you'll see what I mean. No story!
The science can be physical, sociological, psychological. The technology can be anything from electronic engineering to biogenetic engineering. But the stories must be strong and realistic, with believable people (who needn't be human) doing believable things–no matter how fantastic the background might be.