For me, most aiki conversations center around a belief which evidence may or may not support. When we cannot support our beliefs, we throw up our hands and play the religion card. Similarly, we often use science to infer a theory, not substantiate it. That's bad science. Both of these issue arise by over-extending valid arguments.
For example, "aiki exists" is a reasonable claim. "Aiki exists and I can throw a ki ball and knock you down" is more difficult to validate. Oh, and wikipedia and youtube do not validate anything. Neither does your brother's best friend's sister's boyfriend that one time saw something.
For me, the specific definition aiki is belief and therefore personalized to each person's perspectives. Yes, we have evidential support for ki. I believe there is one ki, an energy produced by the body that may be used to enhance our body's functions. I do not believe it may be categorized into multiple types, although I would accept the categorization of its uses.
Politics and religion, never discuss them in mixed company, right? Well, aiki is religion and I think we make far to many unsupported claims to create a valid discussion. We also dismiss far too many valid claims because they conflict with our beliefs. The Earth is flat, right? I think to further aiki discussions we need to realize presenters have burden of proof and respondents have a burden of justification. Both parties have a burden of validity. Did I mention youtube and wikipedia are not valid sources?
For those of you interested, here is a mythbusters video in which Jamie and Adam solve a rubix cube. The video is a scam but aloooottttt of people fell for the scam: