I suppose this is why people say "it's not rocket science".
And the guy said emphatically "Rocket engineer, there is a big difference"
I'm sure this particular task probably was a little bit of both. After all, they had to run several real world experiments to prove their calculations.
The most interesting work is right in the intersection of the two disciplines, though. :)
I guess "purity" is just another word for "lack of immediately applied practicality"
Scientist: Studies and uncovers mysteries of the universe and natural world
Engineer: Applies what scientists discovers
Scientist: Unknown outcome (e.g. hypothesis -> experimentation)
Engineer: Known (or should be) outcome
Science is the knowing of things by their causes. Science is the putting into knowledge what is in reality.
Engineering [which he would call techne, from which we get the word 'technology'] is the art of putting ideas into reality. It is putting what is in our knowledge into the real world.
Thus they are perfectly complementary things, one bringing the world into ideas, the other ideas into the world.
It's possible to argue that the implicit hypothesis there is that there is some sort of difference, but that is a particularly weak hypothesis compared to the specificity of hypotheses that can be formed once we have this pile of data -- i.e maybe X, Y, Z differences are important in this disease.
Sciencing: Uncovering mysteries about the world. Engineering: Applying such discoveries.
Scientist: Predominantly sciences. Engineer: Predominantly engineers.
There's so much overlap it would make sense for C.V.s of either to include a % science/engineering to suss out their own feel for both history and preference of activity.