In another thread I posited that I feel that the practice of magic is more an art than science. I don't think I got my point cross sufficiently so I decided to open this thread to discuss what the difference is and what advantages or disadvantages there may be, if any.
From my perspective the difference is all about expectations and how results are characterized. When one practices a science- chemistry, physics, et cetera, one is looking to replicate conditions to produce a predictable outcome. If an outcome is different than expected it is considered flawed at some point in its preparation or its execution. Variables are reduced to as few known parts as possible. Intuition and mistakes have little place. The predictable result is more important than the experience of the experiment.
When one practices an art- art making, predicting trends, psychology, et cetera, one is looking to use methods that have been successful in the past to produce an outcome but the tolerance for unpredictability is much greater. A result differing from expectations is not necessarily a flaw or a failure. Intuition and mistakes can take the experiment in wholly different directions and are often valued over solid facts. The experience is often more important than the ultimate results.
To me the unknown and the mysterious nature of magic is so much more important than coming up with hard and fast "laws" or hierarchies. "The method of science" has little place in magic.
Perhaps you feel differently.