I think you're splitting hairs, but ok. You describe the process of science and how it produces models. I described how we use those models in engineering - not the science I suppose, but the output (useful models) from it. In a sense, engineering is hoping their efforts confirm the model not falsify it :-)

I think there is some important stuff in this, so maybe splitting hairs to explain accurately is important.

I'm not splitting hairs.

There are people who are called "scientists" who test models with scientific experiment. Then there are people are "engineers" who use the models. If our social structure splits the difference by occupation how am I splitting hairs?

Literally if you didn't run an experiment with a hypothesis you aren't doing science, and people in society therefore won't refer to you as a scientist.

Every engineer tests a hypothesis by designing things based on that hypothesis and then testing that they work as intended. We tend to use the hypothesis' that have already been elevated to the status of theory though.

I've done some Greenfield science as an engineer, and plenty of scientists do some engineering. Titles dont really mean that much to me. It's all sort of a continuum and our place on it isn't strictly defined.

Ok let's be real. You're the one splitting hairs now. There is a clear difference between what either occupation does but of course sometimes a scientist needs to do carpentry or machinist work to build the tools for his experiment. Does this make machining and carpentry the same thing as science? No.

Your arrogance is astounding.