Agreed, but just curious, how would you demonstrate using something other than scientific reasoning that the "magic" hypothesis is false?
Not sure, but I think empitical thought has become so important that some varient has to be used in this "reasoning" we use.
I guess one method would be along the lines of such (and coincidently, leads to empricism) that natural events have natural causes, and man can know them.
This would reason that if man can identify an occurance that happens frequently, it should be considered "natural" and thus it's origins can be studied. The workings of nature would mean that "magic (the unexplained) could not be an answer, if the answer can be understood (or assumed to be undertood) then "magic" is not the answer.
Dialetical thinking would be my "short answer."