Saw this, had to comment: Logic, proper pursuit of knowledge, and the ability to string those into coherent arguments, that gives people the right to comment on such things. Not necessarily makes them the authority on it - that's for people to determine on their own, preferably based on their own knowledge and reasoning.

But it's certainly better than dismissing such claims as hubris automatically. 'course, I'm not quite sure who you're referring to, but I don't recall anyone else making a claim that fits your criticism other than me. Anyway, for my part, I find myself disappointed that people can like the iStuff. I also see the same sociological traits that lead to masses flocking towards the iStuff as being the same ones that contribute to other problems humanity deals with. There's a major difference between that and "propagation of traits inferior within the human race".

Actually, by the same reasoning, what makes you the authority on what claims are moral righteousness, and which ones are perfectly valid reasoned out subjects? At what point can you claim to cross from simply going "you aren't an authority to make such claims because I said so", to having that claim being founded on some sage wisdom? Or for that matter any other statement you made. If you're going to say that something is someone's "right", that in itself can be condemned outright as hubris because, well, what makes you an authority on rights?

Hence my point - it's not a matter of being an authority - it's a matter of the fact that being a sentient thinking life form capable of logic means you can make such claims, and if you're properly informed and your reasoning isn't fallacious, those claims will more or less approximate the truth. Not that I ever really declare myself an authority on such things, I lay claims only to the fact that I do my best to fulfill the criteria of being as logical and as informed as I can be.

- Edit -

Right, wanted to answer this as of half a week ago:

That's actually a flawed understanding. "Point-and-Shoot" with a bow and arrow demands an intuitive grasp of how the arrow will fly under most conditions. Doesn't mean you can put it into mathematical formulas - but you have an understanding in so far as that matters.

More importantly though, ever contemplate how much work goes into making a good bow with primitive tools? Depending on culture and region, it was sometimes a year-long process, where the materials of the compound bows were treated with various oils/fats and left to soak for months, etc. Now, here's the difference and where your analogy is a good illustration of my point - no "tribe"/group/whatever would understand all the details of bow/arrow making/use. But a decent amount would get the general idea, and those who did use bows, or were likely to have to do so, would presumably have had some expectation of maintenance/repair skills for their bows. Which is one of the annoyances I have nowadays - I don't expect people to know coding languages or even be able to read them - but I want people to have at least a layman's understanding of how a computer works, what it does were, and so on. You can understand the general idea of how a computer works just like the "cavemen" wielding bows could understand how an arrow flies, approximately, without calculating parabolic arcs. And you can understand how to solve a basic technology related issue in a computer without needing to understanding CLIs or coding languages. The modern technology user majority is moving towards being the bowman without an understanding of how their bow works. They're able to shoot it while it works but the moment it breaks they're helpless. And yes, that is a problem as said tech user's portions of humanity get more and more dependent on their technology for basic life needs; that's not what I was referring to primarily though, in my first post in this thread. At the time I was thinking of the deeper issue of the fact that the more people do their best to stay rational, informed on a broad range of topics, contemplative of the world and events they do know of, etc, the better results humanity can achieve. That the majority of people do not pursue these things expresses itself in a broad, broad myriad of ways, among which is partially the success of products like the iStuff. 'course, it's more or less a symptom of a symptom, and there's other factors that make the iStuff successful, which aren't embodiments of anything negative at all.