Technology, on its part, represents another level of replication and application and draws often from applied science. This level is mass based and commercial. It also has solutions of everyday human problems at the core of its emphasis. In fact the three concepts of science, applied science and technology can be viewed as sequenced concepts on a knowledge continuum with science at one end and technology on the other. This paper pursues this argument further and goes on to nail the distinction between applied science and technology.
The classical and conventional distinction between pure and applied sciences was best explained by Mario Bunge 40 years ago (Bunge, 1966, and subsequent revisions of Mitcham and Mackey, 1972, & Rapp, 1974). In this acclaimed write up the author proposed that one must comprehend engineering as a specific kind of applied science. Bunge clarified that it is not the objectives in terms of meeting differing needs which adequately explain the difference between pure and applied science, "but the limit must be drawn . . . ...
ge to understand things better in their natural settings often by unearthing and discovering new natural relations, the latter has the primary intent of upgrading our mastery of them (Bunge in Rapp, 1974, p. 20).
Engineering is the discipline that is the closest link the society has to technology. Most technological advances have been sourced from out of the various sub disciplines within the main discipline of engineering. Engineering, as a taught discipline, was considered as science for long.In nineteenth century engineering dealt less with artifacts and more with basic mechanics and chemicals and scientific theories. Subsequently the engineering became artifacts centric and it was easy to make a distinction between engineering as a study of artifacts and of pure science as a study of natural laws. However advances in scientific experimentation have increased manifold, the participation of artifacts in such scientific experimentations also increased manifold thus blurring the distinction further more. Next argument relating to the distinction between the two related to the creative inputs that engineers possessed which enabled them to find newer solutions and create newer devices and equipments. However in 1980s and 1990s detailed methodologies of construction were in print published (Dylla, 1990; Mller, 1990; Hubka, 1981), which exhibited clearly that it was fairly easy to develop models of a typical engineering undertaking to obtain step by step, the final constructive solution of a given problem. These constructed methodologies exhibited that it was eminently feasible to obtain heuristic methods which would obviate any specific and extraordinary input of creativity in most engineering undertakings. Then there were ontological view that clinched the