Well, we genuinely do have a far better understanding of the natural world than the ancients. Many practical problems they faced have been effectively solved by technology, like food scarcity, communication, transportation etc. To me it seems more surprising that there hasn't been similar progress in our understanding of society and the human condition. We're still struggling with most of the same issues they were.
That is mostly my point. What conclusion can you actually make about any other society, current or historical, on the basis of "our practical problems being mostly solved by technology"?
I think the danger in this focus on technology now is that it is so easy to dismiss anything at all that ancient Greeks or whomever said as not even simply wrong but even trivial and unworthy of being studied.
Of course I used to dismiss most earlier writings as well. What could they possibly teach me, after all everything is so advanced now? This kind of attitude being widespread and I think entailed in most modern science talk (as an unspoken and easy conclusion that mostly never becomes explicit) is part of the reason we struggle with the same issues as you say.
The logic why I thought so is simple: I'd read Aristotle views on physics initially (complete garbage) and assumed if one part (that I can easily verify) is garbage, then other parts (that are not so easily verifiable) are likely to be garbage too.
If I see something wrong published on the topic that I know well, I assume that the quality of the content from the same source is not any better for the topics I don't know.
It is a good general principle but the heuristics/shortcut doesn't work sometimes.