I can see both sides of the argument.

For stuff like battlestar galactica, particularly the CGI space shots, the shake, zoom/focus pan/refocus shots (all totally artificial, of course, and all done in post) do add some realism to what would otherwise look pretty sterile and artificial.

In the same way MJS added artificial 16mm grain to all the CGI shots in Babylon 5 (all rendered on Amigas BTW) to stop them looking glaringly at odds with the live action footage.

I did think it a litle overdone on the bourne movies though. We watch movies in our house on a 2m screen via an infocus projector, and with the lights out (which they have to be*) you do start to feel a little sea-sick

*The thing I really dislike about a lot of modern movies is the fact that the director has chosen to expose the brightest part of the frame at like one quarter the potential dynamic range of the stock. I know dark=moody, but even at the cinema I've seen a few scenes that are... "er, like, what's going on in that shot? I can see something moving but I'm buggered if I can see what it is!"