Sarthak Tomar

This paper extends the received view picture of natural science theories (specifically Carnap’s version of it) to engineering theories. In the first part of the paper, drawing from the history of fluid mechanics, specifically the episodes where natural and engineering sciences diverge, this study identifies the distinct goals, concerns, and methodological approaches shaping the two enterprises. A natural science inquiry demands a theoretically mature framework that explains not just observational facts, but the empirical laws themselves, thereby saying more about the world than mere empirical generalizations can. Conversely, answering engineering questions requires developing tools and empirical generalizations—based on experiments—to account for and control a specific class of phenomena or devices, without necessarily needing an explanatory theoretical account for those very laws and tools. In the latter part I employ the covering law and dual-level conception of languages for reconstruction of the historical analysis to establish a structural demarcation criterion. It states that, while scientific theories unify theoretical and observational vocabularies through correspondence rules to maximize explanatory power,engineering models achieve practical utility by incorporating uninterpreted, extraneous observational vocabulary (O_extra). This reliance on O_extra grants engineering models an ad-hoc, stipulative logical strength at the direct expense of theoretical unity.