This paper addresses Lawson's puzzlement about the absence of prediction in William Harvey's and Marcello Malpighi's views on capillaries. In addressing the context of that enquiry, it also addresses historiographic versus philosophical models of science, contexts of discovery versus justification, normative versus descriptive interpretations of the nature of science, and the role of simple dichotomies in interpreting scientific methodology--and how all these distinctions may inform science educators.