The retort astutely points out that an understanding of the principles of reflection and airflow are essential to understanding how everyday objects work. However, what the retort fails to acknowledge is that the point of Nikhil's original essay was not to suggest that he had a full comprehension of the scientific theories behind everyday objects. Rather, the point was to demonstrate that despite the fact that he doesn't fully understand how they work, he is still able to get by.
To put it simply, knowledge of the science behind everyday objects is not always necessary to use them. Reflection and airflow are indeed important concepts to understand, but there is still a great deal of value in being able to use objects even if one does not know the specific mechanisms or nuances behind them. To illustrate this, let's consider a simple example: television. While it is true that an understanding of the physics behind television signals would undoubtedly help one to understand how a television works, one does not need this knowledge in order to use a television. A person can turn on the TV, change channels, and watch a show without having any knowledge of television signals.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that an appreciation of the science behind everyday objects is essential to understanding how they work. However, this appreciation is not always necessary to use them. Therefore, UrRong: it is entirely possible to use these everyday objects without knowing exactly how they work - and as Nikhil stated in his original essay, this allows him to get by!