Welcome back to "Doggerel," where I ramble on about words and phrases that are misused, abused, or just plain meaningless.
I'll cut to the point on this one: Most woos seem completely oblivious to the fact that we're interested in whether or not something works. That's supposed to be easy to demonstrate. I don't know how this computer works (beyond knowing that it involves a lot of really tiny on/off switches), and yet its operation can be clearly demonstrated. Woo, however, tends to fail under proper viewing conditions.
One of the annoying fronts on this issue is medical woo. So many alties ramble about the body's ability to heal itself, but they're quick to dismiss that as a possible alternative explanation for improvement. That's why we have double-blind control studies: There's a big pile of explanations for possible improvement that don't include the treatment in question, and we can't exactly prevent them from happening. So what do we do? We compare the treatment (experimental group) to pretending to give the treatment (placebo group). If the treatment has no noticeable effect, those two groups will have similar outcomes. I fail to see how our lack of knowledge affects the suitability of that test.
It's easy to demonstrate a lot of things working, even if we don't know how. What makes the Quadro tracker, the techno-dowsing rod, any different than real technological sensors? They work even if you don't know how they work. And heck, going on dowsing a little bit more, even being the inventor of your techno-dowsing rod is no guarantee it'll pass the test.
So, to summarize, "Does it work?" is a much more fundamental question than "How does it work?"