There's a very good passage from John Stuart Mill in his <i>Essays on some unsettled Questions of Political Economy</i>:<p>Science: causes.<p>Technology: effects. (Alternatively: means.)<p><i>One of the strongest reasons for drawing the line of separation clearly and broadly between science and art is the following:—That the principle of classification in science most conveniently follows the classification of causes, while arts must necessarily be classified according to the classification of the effects, the production of which is their appropriate end. Now an effect, whether in physics or morals, commonly depends upon a concurrence of causes, and it frequently happens that several of these causes belong to different sciences. Thus in the construction of engines upon the principles of the science of mechanics, it is necessary to bear in mind the chemical properties of the material, such as its liability to oxydize; its electrical and magnetic properties, and so forth. From this it follows that although the necessary foundation of all art is science, that is, the knowledge of the properties or laws of the objects upon which, and with which, the art dons its work; it is not equally true that every art corresponds to one particular science. Each art presupposes, not one science, but science in general; or, at least, many distinct sciences.</i><p><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12004/12004-h/12004-h.htm#FNanchor11" rel="nofollow">http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12004/12004-h/12004-h.htm#FNa...</a>