Consider this: I watch a Harry Potter movie when I am a kid (I did) and, as early as kids, of course, older people tend to teach young kids at some point that motion pictures are "fiction" and not to be taken seriously; however, in this same sentiment, we are expected to experience emotions from these films (emotions that are real, felt within us, and clearly are "real"; the same as emotions over a dead person).
We are told that science is testing to prove something real (for simplicity's sake, let's leave it at that).
If science is based on(a) testing procedure(s), and evidence shows us that "science isn't always right," and we experience mistakes all the time in all walks of life, why is it just to call science "real" but magic to be irrefutably "fake"? Isn't that ignorant and more so based on trained beliefs than actuality?
Example: A person who laughs at me may reason and say, "Well, in Harry Potter, a car flies; cars don't fly in "real life" now, do they?" We know, however, that cars flying is not anywhere near a reasonable realm of "impossibility"; cars can even parallel park themselves, auto-lane assist, and predict crashes before they even happen. So a car flying is very, very, very far from "magic", isn't it?
At that level of reasoning, one could argue that science is inevitably "real" because it has "real world effect" to us directly: medicine curing sickness, computers like the one you're reading this on now, and even the ability to explain how we'd explain how we'd think another person may think is thinking of us.
Being very specific, I could say science is "real" at the same time a scientific blunder backfired on the "expert" whom was researching it; likewise, someone in the 1420s would call me "insane" if I told them there'd be walking robots, video game emulators and computer virtualization, and auto-flying ships.
What is "fake" could be made to appear in an unexplainable, magical form that could be done with science, but what is "real" depends on who currently believes it to be.
As for another example, consider the perception of reality from our not-so-perfectly-understood consciousness of the world. Consider that everything we know and do is based on consciousness, and we are not so sure how consciousness works inside our minds to the point where we can even emulate it. Since we grow up with little biases, cultures, and our own shaped little perception of "the world" as we know it, seen differently by all around us, and impossible to prove that our consciousness exists in others outside of our own lives (Can you irrefutably prove that I wrote this? A human with consciousness? Maybe you are the only conscious person, or maybe I am the only person feeling and experiencing it?)
Some people even learn to dissociate "real" from "fake" in unsettling ways. Say a girl uses the internet and talks to people on the other side, but from her mind she sees them all as "internet people," virtual, apparent beings in her mind, but in the same realm as she witnesses "TV people," actors & characters.
Is the internet social experience "fake" then, assuming more than one person sees this the same as this hypothetical girl does? But how could we assure that the face-to-face experience is the "real" one then?
Where does one drawn the line between, "What one feels is real to them, regardless of anything else," versus, "If one feels something different from most, one is insane because it makes no sense to us."?
If science was perfectly "real" it would be flawless, lest we consider that magic can also be real too, given that there are things we can't explain, which is how apparent "magic" works.
