Ancient texts in discussions of science?

Ancient texts are sometimes referenced during discussions of scientific matters. I would like to ask if this is proper.The ancients, naturally, knew and understood less than we moderns. Some ancient writings are accurate, some are not. Is the antiquity of a text a valid reason to reference it in a discussion?In some cases, a text has been declared holy by some religion or other, and its adherents accord the text authority. Adherents of other religions, or none, however, are under no obligation to accord the text any authority. Are holy texts useful when discussions include non-adherents?

I agree that one need not automatically reject a text because it is old. On the other hand I also do not think anyone should feel obliged to automatically accept a text because it is old (or for any other reason, for that matter.).
What extraordinary Egyptian mathematics are you referring to? The pyramids are quite ordinary engineering.

Quite right, but there are so many to choose from!Looking at the ancient Greeks, for example, Archimedes did good work on density and other things and Eratosthenes made a remarkably good estimate of the diameter of the earth. Both used an approach that we would recognize as scientific, with experiments.Aristotle tried to do physics without experimenting, got things wrong much of the time, and probably delayed the appearance of modern science by hundreds of years. The history of the writings of Aristotle is a good example of the harm that can be done by slavish adherence to ancient texts.Other examples are the medieval herbals. They mixed sound (probably folk) knowledge with outrageous balderdash.If writings are supported by modern knowledge, we can regard them as accurate. If they are refuted by modern knowledge, we can say they are inaccurate. Otherwise, we don't know either way. We can get an estimate by considering whether the material is consistant with the way we now know the universe works. Personally, I think that the "wisdom of the ancients" notion is chiefly useful for making sensationalistic TV programs.In these comments, I am just referring to what the texts say. They can be good evidence about the times in which they were written whether what they say is accurate or not.