@Aedes,
I can't speak to how sensible Aristotle's observations on biology were, but if he used the same methods as he did for mechanics, I am skeptical. I wouldn't call his observations on mechanics "scientific". Just because someone makes an observation does not mean their observation is scientific. If that is the only requirement, then the spectrum of science becomes quite broad - probably broader than you think it should be.
If you read "History of Mechanics" by Dugas, you will find there several examples where Aristotle obviously did not base his comments on observation - or at least his observation must have been done on a cloudy day with one eye shut. His comments on "natural" motions and whether they are lines or circles are especially telling. And he offers nothing to justify why he thinks lines and circles are natural. He basically just states that they are.
At most you could say he put forth a hypothesis. But there is no evidence that he ever went any farther. It is a common criticism of the ancients that they were fond of philosophizing all kinds of constituents underlying the physical world, but never did anything to investigate their ideas.
Again, that doesn't mean they were fools. They were brilliant, and many of the questions they raised set the stage for science - some of them are still difficult to answer. But I'm not yet ready to call it science.
If others are, it makes my job easier, because I have observed many things about God that I'd like to share.
