Filtering out which parts are factual and which parts are superstitious nonsense is where the science comes in. That and discovering the mechanism by which the old way works. There's a lot of knowledge hidden in ancient wisdom, but it comes encrusted with a thick shell of bullshit.

> Filtering out which parts are factual and which parts are superstitious nonsense is where the science comes in.

Literally, and in the historical sense. That's pretty much how the Royal Society got started.

I think Nostradamus predicted that!

What of it? Science and traditional knowledge are not in competition. The article is just pointing out some interesting times where it was way ahead of science.

Your second and third sentence kind of contradict each other.

No, they do not. For example, look at Jewish and Muslim food laws. Back at 0AD (and earlier) science didn't know about microorganisms, but the population sure knew that e.g. mixing milk and meat was dangerous. Or that knackers, slaughterhouses and burial sites must be outside city limits to prevent disease spread.

Science is a method, it doesn't 'know' anything. Anyway, to say that there's no competition, but argue that one school of thought is 'ahead' implies a destination that both (and potentially others) are racing towards.

In year 0, the science did not know anything because "science" as we define it today did not exist. The scientific method was not widely practiced until 16th century (and even then it was severely limited).

And in another 2000 years people will laugh at you calling what we do today science. Sure, we invented a process we defined as the scientific method; but it's unfair to say that ancient people, philosophers, medical practitioners etc. didn't practice their own version thereof.

No, they came to the same conclusion

But to say something was ahead of something else implies a clear path. I think these are separate spheres of thought that make similar claims, the difference is that they make it on different bases.