Fine, Hipster. Although I would hardly describe folk medicine as "empiricist", unless you wish to arbitrarily superimpose contemporary notions of modernity over ostensibly premodern and prescientific ways of interpreting the cosmos; the proposition that the mind is a tabula rasa and that knowledge of the external world can only be synthesized a posteriori is a doctrine which finds its origins in the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But my point about folk wisdom was that there are many other sources of knowledge just as valid as that acquired by means of "scientific objectivity", traditionally defined by the inductivistic and falsificationist approaches. But the acquisition of knowledge, at least its greatest discoveries, is serendipitous: being able to visualize correlations between unrelated phenomena which requires the epistemological transcendence of the limits of human consciousness.
As to your insistence on the necessities of specialization, I still think you're quite wrong. The problems which confront us as a species are enormously complex and therefore must be approached from multiple perspectives, which almost automatically entails an interdisciplinarity of thought. Innovation is based on a series of complex interactions between ideas from an eclectic array of sources, and being able to synthesize and communicate these effectively to other disciplines across the barriers of one's narrow specialty is the driving engine behind the scientific progress of civilization as a whole.
Besides, you're the next Ted Kaczynski, a self-confessed anarcho-primitivist who lives a stone's throw away from Walden pond in a ramshackle cabin calmly waiting for the world to implode. I don't see why any of this should matter to you anyway.