Woodsy:
Ancient texts are sometimes referenced during discussions of scientific matters.
I understand all 'discussions' you mention after this point to be discussions of scientific matters.
I would like to ask if this is proper.
Ancient texts are part of our collective body of knowledge. Anything in that body of knowledge has potential value.
The ancients, naturally, knew and understood less than we moderns.
We know more about some things. They knew more about other things.
Generally speaking, we have a bigger understanding of the picture: how objects on earth and in the sky are related, how features we see on our planet came to be, the forces that cause things to behave as they do, how our communities relate to others, etc. We also have more advanced technological knowledge.
The ancients possessed knowledge that was necessarily more local in scope and more limited technologically. But what they knew they knew well. Their knowledge was still valid knowledge--and valuable.
Many people today would be thrilled to know what the Harappans knew about reading their own writing. We would love to know what the Mayans knew about their music. We would love to know what the Hittites knew about speaking their own language. We would love to know what Oetzi knew about how he spent his last days. This is all knowledge someone once possessed. Someone once knew this subject intimately, took the knowledge for granted. We can only gain glimpses of what they knew.
Our technology for travel far exceeds that of the ancients. But put any of us in a boat in the open ocean with no communications equipment and no navigation tools? It's safe to say we would not fare nearly as well as the Stone Age Micronesians who settled in Taiwan 6000 years ago. They knew how to navigate accurately with no tools, how to know if previously undiscovered islands lay over the horizon--even how to predict, sight unseen, how many islands lay out there. And they knew better than most of us how to survive on an island once they landed.
Our ability to send text around the world is unprecedented. But if you put us in a dimly lit room with animal skins and inks and brushes, and ask us to copy a book by hand, most of us would make a hash of the job. We certainly would not produce the quality of work monks produced ten centuries ago.
Knowledge gained, knowedge lost.
Some ancient writings are accurate, some are not.
True. And in this respect their antiquity is incidental. Quality control is a never-ending challenge in all human endeavors. Some modern documents are accurate, too, and some are not.
One assesses the accuracy of texts, old or new, in much the same way. The passage of time introduces complications for older documents but the basic process is the same.
Is the antiquity of a text a valid reason to reference it in a discussion?
If its antiquity is relevant to the discussion. In that case the document represents a primary source.
Trilobite fossils are nautral 'documents' of great antiquity. Is it valid to make reference to them in a discussion? If the trilobites or their world are what you intend to understand, the primary source is indispensable.
Otherwise, no. The date on a document does not by itself make the document more or less relevant to the discussion than others of a different date.
That said, the reality remains: the more recent the document, the more recent the knowledge the writers had access to. The more ancient the document, the more ancient the knowledge the writers had access to.
Recent documents are far preferred in scientific discussions for this reason. Science is a process of ongoing discovery. A statement has to square with the body of knowledge as it exists today for it to carry any authority as science.
Real science documents--documents written directly from observations and experiments employing the scientific method--are always greatly preferred over non-scientific and pre-scientific literature. This is not because other writings lack importance, but because their importance lies mainly in other areas. Science documents exist to address scientific concerns. Other kinds of documents exist to address other kinds of concerns.
One uses all documents available with an eye to the strengths and weaknesses of each.
In some cases, a text has been declared holy by some religion or other, and its adherents accord the text authority.
By 'authority' here I understand you to mean authority as a supernatural revelation delivered in literary form.
Adherents of other religions, or none, however, are under no obligation to accord the text any authority.
The text will not speak with the same authority to those outside the religious community as to those within it. This is true by definition: non-adherents do not adhere. (The question of 'obligation' is a different matter, but that lies outside the realm of scientific discussion.)
Are holy texts useful when discussions include non-adherents?
Holy texts are useful in a pluralistic environment the same way any documents are useful as a potential source of information.
Holy texts are useless in such an environment for settling debate by appeals to divine authority. Persuasion of this sort is only possible within the boundaries of the religous community that regards the text as revelation. The appeal is useless in persuading non-adherents who do not grant this.
The same may be said of any appeal to divine revelation, regardless of whether a text is involved.
Appeals to supernatural authority are always non-scientific. This is true whether the environment is pluralistic or not. Science explores natural phenomena and seeks natural explanations. Introduction of supernatural causes and phenomena takes the discussion outside the realm of science.
.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.
Archer
All species are transitional.
™ Version 4.2
