On the dichotomy of science

In the introduction to Part III of "The History of Western Philosophy," Bertrand Russell notes that there exist two types of science: theoretical and practical. Theoretical science

"...is an attempt to understand the word. Practical science, which is an attempt to change the world, has been important from the first,and has continually increased in importance, until it has almost ousted theoretical science from men's thoughts."

I find this dichotomy of science to be absolutely fascinating. What's more, I'm at this moment suspicious that this dichotomy may actually be different from the common division of science into basic and applied realms, as I will now explain.

First, I'll define basic and applied science as I understand them. Importantly, the definitions that I will present are, I think, what most scientists would agree on. Basic, or fundamental, science is a means for establishing modes of thought or logical frameworks for arriving at predictive models of natural phenomena.  According to Wikipedia, "basic science is development and establishment of information to aid understanding." Applied science, however, seeks to alter the course of natural events and achieve some purpose.

Now consider the mantra espoused by many scientists and professional organizations that is argued before governments and funding agencies: basic science and fundamental research often leads to important discoveries that are translated into new technologies. Importantly, technology and economic prosperity go hand-in-hand. In this argument, it is therefore assumed that basic science is linked to applied science in some kind of linear chain which ends with technology and prosperity. Indeed, some current business models are capitalizing on the apparent gap between academic research and industry by creating a business for translating information from the former to the latter.

In this line of reasoning, basic science and applied science are both means to the same end: new technologies and their resulting economic stimulus. The goals of Russell's two types of sciences are different, however. Theoretical science increases our understanding of the world, whereas practical science provides us with more of something tangible, whether it be electricity, airplanes, or smart phones. Practical science encompasses both basic and applied science. As Russell points out:

"The triumph of science has been mainly due to its practical utility, and there has been an attempt to divorce this aspect from that of theory, thus making science more and more a technique, and less and less a doctrine as to the nature of the world."

Even CERN, which at first glance is a triumph of theoretical science, is touted for its technological contributions to applied science. If it were otherwise, I doubt the European Union would have funded it.

The point I'm trying to make is that Russell saw in theoretical science something wholly different from most scientist's understanding about what science is and lies outside of their definitions of basic and applied. I think his theoretical science is more akin to how children see science. Working scientists, however, are forever having to justify their work to governments and funding agencies, which eventually erodes the role that the theoretical aspect plays on their conception.

What good would an awareness of theoretical science provide? Does the general public, i.e. non-scientists or government workers, even need to understand that this dichotomy exists? To a layman, applied science contains just as much wonder and insight as theoretical science does.