I think you misread me a little. The whole point of that post was just that I see it as counter-productive to try and convince someone your strong beliefs w/o proof are more correct than their strong beliefs w/o proof.

It's just as bad as a religious or political argument. The chances of one side swaying the other with their argument is next to nothing.

And now I may be misreading you, but it seems that you thought I said chi was silly. I didn't. I merely said arguing about it's existance was silly. That also means I didn't say researching it or studying it was silly. Just the argument.
There are no PERFECT techniques, only perfect execution for the situation at hand. ~Corwin