I have to disagree with the characterization of "science" as predictable and "magic" as not. With respect, that over-simplified sentiment smells of the smugness of dogma and a lack of understanding of non-scientific-based beliefs.
To me, the difference between mainstream "Science" and what might be called "pseudo-science" (e.g. holistic medicine, meditation, traditional chinese medicine, acupuncture) is more nuanced than that. Many of those systems are indeed "predictable" in that if you can do "ABC" then you will get "XYZ", but the rub comes because in many of those systems the observer affects the observation, and specific factors can not be easily isolated for a double-blind test. For example, if you have a migraine headache and dry tongue, that's considered a completely different thing in Traditional Chinese Medicine than if you have a migraine with a stomach ache, and mixing treatments can result in exasperating the symptoms. Similarly a trained Shaolin Monk going through a series of meditational exercises can affect his body with observable and predictable results, where as a complete newby going through the same exercises may have not observable affects. More so, many of these systems require a non-rational non-logical intuitive understanding of the world, e.g. shamanistic vision quests ala Carlos Castaneda.
Again, "magic" is just science we haven't figured out yet (or in the Clarkian mode, science we no longer understand). Observation-affected phenomena are not nonscientific. Quantum physics is full of phenomena affected by observation.
Pseudo science that has provable, predictable results is no longer pseudo, it's science. Of course people can make synecdochal observations of phenomena and make pseudoscientific claims, even mimicking or appropriating the language and methodology of science without actually understanding or following it through completely. This does not change the fact that real things are real, and nonreal things are not real. If you can observe, quantify, study, repeat, or manipulate it, it is real, and therefore falls under the purview of science. If you can't do any of those things, then what are we even talking about?
Scientists are not infallible. They make errors in judgment, jump to conclusions, misunderstand evidence, and may even discount phenomena because it "seems improbable" or "unscientific". This is a failure of the person, not of science itself. Science does not make judgments based on assumptions, it makes judgments based on observations. People, however, have a hard time ignoring their assumptions, and scientific breakthroughs have indeed been delayed or ignored because of this.
This doesn't change the fact that science deals with reality, fact, and observation. Everything that exists has an explanation, whether or not we currently understand it.
Oh, and by the way, if spirits, gods, aliens, magic, fairies, ghosts. chi, demons, loas, etc exist? They're science too.