I'm not sure how you interpreted what I said.

The first party is making the case for leaning non-scientifically proven (or unconfirmed after testing, or whatever) systems. Arguments are several but fall along the lines that their catching on culturally and having at least some confirmed useful features indicates they have something to them, so one is better off with them than if they hadn't been considered, even if most of it is crap.

The second party is attributing the valid bits to the stopped clock being right twice a day phenomenon and saying it is almost certainly not a productive use of time for anyone to study such systems (unless they are studying the system as a thing studied rather than a system used, as an anthropologist would study a cargo cult and not as a shaman would study the cult).

Making a case for something involves acknowledging critics, which in this case I intended to be the second party.