" it would be arrogant from a scientific stance to suggest that we have all the answers"
I don't think anyone is claiming that, but we have many answers.
Where those answers contradict the woo, is it unreasonable to expect people to re-evaluate their convictions on the basis of the evidence?
Acupuncture, for example, has been shown over and over as being no more effective than placebo, and haphazard sticking of needles by people who know nothing of acupuncture is as 'effective' as what is done by professionals. There is little doubt (none, really) that it is pseudoscience, with no physiological mechanism of action.
It would be interesting to talk about meditation, mindfulness, hypnosis - how and why they work. Their effects are well-documented and they are not woo, though.
It would be fantastic if we could talk about the evidence and discuss whether or not some of that "borderline woo" might work or not. The problem is that those discussions never happen because their proponents are not interested in anything other than "this is my belief, it worked for my mum's dog" etc and they would never change their minds even when presented with incontrovertible proof that it doesn't work.