How important are ancient texts?

I have a book on my bookshelf. Can't remember the title but it's a sampling, or "best of", the discourses of the Buddha. I've pulled it down from time to time and opened to a random place, but haven't yet found it very inspiring. I am pretty sure that I am going to want to read the scriptures at some point, and when I reach that point I might think, "I should have looked at this stuff a long time ago." That's why I keep trying it.

But my current view is this: Aristotle was one of the earliest scientists, and he was a genius. There is benefit to reading his writings. But when I want deeper understanding of science, I never turn to Aristotle's writings. I turn to current writings, because we've learned a million new things since Aristotle. Some of these things negate his conclusions.

And it's often impossible to know, reading ancient writings, what the writer really meant. It drives me crazy, for example, how strenuously people try to interpret the anapanasati sutta, especially the part that says "breathe in with the whole breath" (or whatever): does it mean to be aware of the whole breath cycle, or to be aware of the entire body as it breathes? We can never know what the Buddha meant, and maybe he didn't even think this particular thing was important. It makes more sense to me to find out what works for people now.

There is at least one instance in the history of science (specifically cancer research) where people spent decades trying to understand one cryptic sentence written by a long dead, but brilliant, previous researcher. At international meetings they spent hours in debate. Turned out that this particular sentence was a complete dead end, whichever way it was interpreted! The dead brilliant scientist had gotten that particular thing utterly wrong.