General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Rickety Woo [View all]mike_c
(36,281 posts)...without attaching value judgements, generally. Both are important. I raise the point here because there are two ways to achieve predictability in nature. The first is generally the domain of science, where mechanistic understanding underpins prediction. In your example, that would require analysis of white pine bark tea and formal experimentation to test various hypotheses.
The second, more often associated with natural history, is predictability through repeated observation. One need not know anything about orbital mechanics to predict the changing seasons, for example. Natural history is not unscientific per se-- many students make that mistaken assumption and think that once we get out the sophisticated measuring equipment we've left nature history behind and begun doing science. It is often quite difficult to convince them otherwise.
Science and natural history are like two sides of the same coin, two approaches to achieving predictability, which is important because true things remain true as long as their context is constant. Your ancestors discerned an effect of white pine bark tea through repeated observation. Whether that began as a formal inquiry is ultimately unimportant, I think. The knowledge was acquired, and subsequent experiences confirmed its predictable effects.