It's impossible to disprove something until evidence has been shown for it.

I can say that magic of the kind described would violate the laws of thermodynamics, but most people would argue that all that means is that thermodynamics is wrong.

However, if evidence is shown then I can look at that evidence and say if it works or not.

That's called the burden of proof, and it's always on the person making the positive claim. As soon as you say that 'X' happens it's up to you to prove that this is the case, only then is it up to me to show it's wrong.


This may seem unfair or odd to you, but I'll give you an example of why it works this way:

I tell you that there is an invisible dragon in my garage. That's all. I don't tell you why I think this, nor do I let you see my garage. Could I then say that since you cannot disprove my statement there must be a dragon in my garage? Well, no, obviously that isn't how it works.

First I'd have to provide evidence of this dragon in my garage. I could show you a footprint that I found. Then you would be able to start trying to disprove my statement. You could say: "One footprint isn't enough evidence." (which is true.), you could also ask how I know that a dragon left this footprint, etc.

If the footprint is my only evidence and you raise enough doubt then I'd be forced to abandon my dragon hypothesis. The same thing holds here. You need some sort of evidence of magic, otherwise why would you accept it? If someone can then point out that the evidence isn't good enough then presumably you'd abandon your view. If you have enough solid evidence to prove the existence of magic then it would become accepted.

__________________
"Science is the poetry of reality." ~ Richard Dawkins