[josephcsible]

I'd have nothing against a proper scientific experiment to see whether or not magic is real. But the scientific method absolutely requires falsifiability, so if you can't come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, then you're doing pseudoscience.

[mistermann]

I notice you are using science and the scientific method interchangeably.

How can science study magic without knowing whether it is falsifiable first? Would that require them to do potentially unscientific/pseudoscientific things not becoming of a proper scientist? If we allowed that, next thing they'd be thinking without dogmatic constraints!

[josephcsible]

It's fine to do science without knowing up front whether something is falsifiable. One of the steps in the scientific method is to formulate a hypothesis. You can go up to that step even before you figure out whether you have something falsifiable; you just can't go past it until you do.